It's not my job to predict how a film will do at the box office, for the plain and simple reason that a film's quality and it's box office success are almost never connected. And anyone reading this who equates box office success with quality films should stop reading and strap on a dunce cap with an unbreakable lock. But if I were a betting man, I'd guess that the Jodie Foster-directed THE BEAVER was either going to absolutely kill at the box office due to morbid curiosity, or it will never catch on because of a combination of its pitch dark subject matter and the presence of Mel Gibson, whose eventual and inevitable comeback is due very soon (hopefully with a big push from this film).

But none of that really interests me, because if you choose not to see THE BEAVER, you'll be missing the first Oscar-worthy performance in 2011, one that I firmly believe will stick until awards season kicks in at the end of the year. And rather than attempt to erase from memory all of Gibson's antic and taped ravings in the past couple of years, feel free to embrace them and put them at the front of your mind as you watch him play Walter Black, a toy company executive who has fallen into a deep depression and is clearly headed toward suicide. There are things Walter says about himself, his self worth, his pain, and sanity that feel so much like a confession straight from Gibson that you have trouble remembering who is talking. And it's one of those rare moments when art and life collide like two bullet trains to make something bigger than the sum of its parts.

After a half-hearted, failed suicide attempt that takes place after his long-suffering wife Meredith (Foster) reluctantly kicks him out of their home because his near-comatose behavior is tearing them apart as a family, Walter finds a discarded beaver hand puppet. Although strangely enough, Foster never shows us the moment Walter puts the puppet on and gives it its cockney British voice, he decides that from that point forward all communications to and from Walter should go through the puppet, known simply as The Beaver. And what's even stranger is that The Beaver seems to have his shit together and makes better decisions (personally and at the office) than Walter has in months. And The Beaver is a real character, making jokes, giving advice, all the time with Walter standing in the background as much as he can looking very pensive about his new spokesperson.

The film's main subplot involves Walter's oldest son, Porter (Anton Yelchin of CHARLIE BARTLETT, TERMINATOR SALVATION, and STAR TREK), who is wildly intelligent but not smart enough to stay out of trouble as he runs a successful paper-writing business at his high school. He can not only write quality papers, but he spends time with those for whom he's writing to mimic their voice in the paper. Porter falls for Norah (WINTER'S BONE's Jennifer Lawrence), a beautiful cheerleader at the school, who also happens to be at the top of her class. She wants to hire him to write the graduation speech she must deliver but has no passion about doing so. Almost every group and club she's a part of is for transcript filler, so she's gone through life with no real enthusiasm, much like Porter. Both have secrets, both have troubling traits (Porter bashes his head into his bedroom wall when he gets angry), so it only makes sense that they are drawn to one another.

But the difficult thing about watching THE BEAVER is that the subplot doesn't merge very well with the main story about Walter and The Beaver. Porter loathes his dad, while his younger brother, Henry (Riley Thomas Stewart), seems to grow closer and more attached to Walter/Beaver than he has in a while. I found both stories fascinating, but not equally so. How could they be? As a result, every time the film cuts away from Gibson, my interest decreased. Fortunately, that doesn't happen all that often, and what we're left with is a staggering, sometimes frightening look at mental illness and the ways all of us cope with our shortcomings as human beings and good people. For the film's brief (too brief in my estimation) 90-minute running time, we are given a fascinating profile of a type of treatment that could either result in a much better man once the puppet goes away, or one in which The Beaver totally devours the man.

The films isn't a complete downer. Especially in the film's first half, Foster peppers in a great deal of humor before hurling us into Walter's abyss. The former black-listed script by Kyle Killen isn't exactly trying to balance the funny and the pain, and, as a result, some critics have complained about the "tone" of THE BEAVER. But I believe that Killen's words and Foster's direction (she has previously helmed LITTLE MAN TATE and HOME FOR THE HOLIDAYS) are appropriately schizophrenic and meant to reflect Walter's state of mind. The scenes with Porter and Norah have a different, more relaxed tone than the ones in which The Beaver is struggling to subjugate Walter's depressed state. Tone was never an issue for me because I believe to my core it was intentional.

The Beaver persona comes up with a new toy idea that sets the world on fire, and soon Walter/Beaver are doing the talk show circuit. As much as these sequences might sound gimmicky, I believe they actually convey how a person like Walter would be received and treated in today's pop-culture-fueled American society. He becomes an instant celebrity, naturally.

I haven't really mentioned Foster's performance because it's tough to judge. Hers is a reactive role, and with the exception of a great scene set at a romantic dinner on the couple's anniversary, she doesn't really get a shot at cutting lose as an actor the way Gibson does. Perhaps that is Foster the director making certain no one (including herself) overshadows the deep cuts that Gibson is putting into Walter. With this character, Gibson isn't just giving a performance; he's front loading all of his exquisite self-doubt into the man, and the result is extraordinary, possibly the single best work he's ever done. Anxiety lives in his eyes, but then he pushes that damn puppet at the camera, and the world seems better. I don't mean to ignore Gibson's puppeteering, which is actually quite expressive and moving. It's the complete package, and even if you find fault with the movie, I doubt any of your issues will have to do with Gibson.

THE BEAVER is a profile of a man and his family in crisis. Foster wisely always keeps a thread of hope alive that all members of the family are striving for the same outcome, but leaves open the possibility that things may not end well for the Blacks. Although the son's subplot is equal parts distracting and compelling, I wouldn't have necessarily cut it, since both Yelchin and Lawrence elevate the material well beyond the page. The thing I missed most is Foster the actor, who we really haven't seen act in a proper movie since 2007's THE BRAVE ONE. I know she's just wrapping Roman Polanski's CARNAGE right now, and I can't wait to see that, but her selfless work in THE BEAVER robs us of two great performance. I guess I'm greedy. I kind of can't wait for you to see this film and judge Gibson, the actor, on those terms alone, without all of the noise surrounding him now. There is no possible way you won't be impressed on some level with his work and the film.

he is probably closer to Tom Cruise (terribly distracting, and personally vehemently disagree with his statements) than, say, Roman Polanski and R. Kelly (no interest in ever seeing/listening to either of their works)

Terrific filmmaker. Haven't seen the jesus one cuz I'm jewish and that's just gross--but braveheart and apocalypto were great movies. probably really isn't an anti-semite on a one on one basis, but gets drunk and parrots shit he heard growing up from his fucked up father. betya a million he's a great guy when he's sober. That being said, this doesn't look good. Lifetime movie.

you can separate drunk abusive Mel from actor Mel then you will be in awe of this performance and it should get him an Oscar nomination. The Academy, who loves to nominate pedophile rapists, won't nominate a drunk rambler. As for the physical abuse I haven't followed it on the news to be honest so I don't know fact from fiction on that subject.

The script was pretty good, and I will see the movie. One thing people (who haven't read the script) should know before seeing the movie is that The Beaver "character" isn't really played for laughs. Yes, it's amusing at times, but the script never goes for big laughs. On a related note, people should know that the drama and comedy in the movie play a lot like they do in the movie In Good Company. It's a little dramatic without any huge Oscar-clip-worthy dramatic scenes, and it's a little funny without any huge laughs. I think it'll be a mostly quiet, down-to-earth movie, with good acting, that doesn't feel as showy or Oscar-friendly as a movie like American Beauty. However, the high school boy and girl's storyline does feel reminiscent of American Beauty (in multiple ways, particularly because most of it develops away from Mel Gibson's storyline). I think it will be a good, solid little movie that some people will ignore (if they don't see it) or disappointed (if they do see it) because it's neither a big summer movie nor a small artsy movie. Once again, In Good Company comes to mind.

Russell Crowe's character in "A Beautiful Mind" is schizophrenic. Schizophrenia means delusions, hallucinations, tangential/rambling/nonsensical speech, and generally disorganized behavior, among other things.
What used to be called "split personality" or "multiple personality disorder" is dissociative identity disorder, NOT schizophrenia.
If Foster's direction was "schizophrenic," the movie wouldn't make sense at all. A "schizophrenic" movie would be edited at random, with scenes, shots, and dialogue totally jumbled together.

Polanski is a great filmmaker. Whatever you think of his personal life, see Repulsion, The Tenant, Knife in the Water, Cul-de-Sac, Chinatown and Macbeth. All truly great films that you are disservicing yourself by not seeing.

Rodney the Ram - I immediately envisioned Rodney Dangerfield doing the Triple Lindy, but instead of from a diving board it was onto an opponent inside a ring. Imagine that big-eyed expression as he lands elbow first into the guy...

I bet if you met him, he'd be nicer and more genuine then 90% of the hollywood jagoffs you would meet on a set.
People vent sometimes, big fuckin' deal. Go play a game of Call of Duty on Xbox Live and have a listen to what 12 yrs olds say to you. Mel's rants are 12x less offensive then what these people say.
Gibson is a great actor/filmmaker... more on-screen charisma then most of the others we call 'stars' these days. Any movie he's in, has my attention.

And neither should you! Hey, while we're on the subject of box office, let's talk about box office! But seriously, box office doesn't matter, get over it! But I bet you're wondering how this film is going to do at the box office aren't you? Well stop wondering, because no one cares about box office!
Anyways, let's forget all that box office stuff.

"...cruelty might be very human, and it might be very cultural, but it's not acceptable."
-- her Oscar acceptance
speech for "ACCUSED"
in which she played a
woman who is violently
raped.
Directs THE BEAVER, starring Mel Gibson, who was convicted of physically assaulting his girlfriend.
She next stars in CARNAGE, directed by Roman Polanski, who was convicted of statutory rape of a 13-year old girl.
I've always admired Jodie Foster, but this gets to me. Is she truly forgiving of these people or is she just in denial? I don't know.

Passionate people also tend to be emotionally troubled on some level. From the very beginning of his career his absolutely thrown his soul into every role he's given. It's not character acting bullshit and it's not calculated "method" acting—it's just raw performance. That's why people love his work and you don't get to that kind of intensity without a few drawbacks I would think. Needless to say I'm looking forward to the return of Mel the actor.

He's had a string of successes, he's probably among the top five actors AND top fifteen directors these days... I guess there were some moronic attacks against him in the US, but across the world, he's as hailed as he always was.

Not ALL of us in the U.S. have our opinions shaped by the media. What goes over so many heads here is that Gibson might be the actual victim here, not the girlfriend. I've always loved Mel as an actor and will continue to, until I've seen otherwise. And I'll be there opening weekend to support him. (Of course, having spent a day as an extra on the film has nothing to do with it!) And to respond to thenewxcastleincident, Mel simply pleaded "no contest". He didn't "assault" her...unless you consider a slap (due to concerns about his child which she was shaking) an assault. Not saying the slap was anything he's proud of...but here in America, people unfortunately like to castigate and condemn without knowing the facts. (Hi Charlie!)

The movie was shot in 2009, a year before his altercation with his wife, and the studio sat on the film because, "The movie would not have been the topic of discussion had we brought it to market last year, and we wanted the movie to be the topic of discussion." That's the official word from Summit CEO Rob Friedman, as reported in the NY Times.
As the child of an alcoholic, I understand that people aren't quite themselves when they're drunk, and they say things they wouldn't normally say under full rational power, but it hurts all the same, and its hard to forgive if they aren't trying to get help in a BIG way, or act like its no big deal because "I was drunk" you know?
Still, I say if you want to boycott Gibson, go ahead, but don't punish Danny Glover and Jodie Foster and Anton Yelchin and Tina Turner and Roland Emmerich and Richard Donner and all those long lists of people whose names share space with Mel's at the end credits of "his" movies. If you can't separate the man from the performance, maybe YOU'RE more prejudiced than you'd like to admit. I agree with Hitchcock's Psycho- we're all just a few drinks away from being someone we don't want to be. Check your own hypocrisy before you start making grand gestures.

he was physically abusive or an angry alcoholic but because he was antisemitic. In Hollywood, you can be a child rapist, but still be celebrated and defended. But you say anything negative against the Jews, it's like you're playing with dynamite.

and it makes me lol.
and thats how i will always think of this asshole who attacks a woman while shes holding a baby with no regard for that baby's safety.
keep smiling mel if u wanna get back in hollywoods good graces.

Mel Gibson's job in my life is to make good movies I want to see, not to be a good husband or parent. I could care less about what he does in his private life. He's a good actor who makes good movies I want to see. The end.

"Haven't seen the jesus one cuz I'm jewish and that's just gross"
Why is this so common and acceptable to say so blithely? I'm no religious fanatic but man, this is some harsh shit people just throw out there without any care.

Capone has the good taste to review the movie and not cringe about whether or not it's 'too soon' from Gibson's latest event-- which I am almost certain will be the Entertainment Weekly take on The Beaver. Critical for the parts that don't work as well, but appreciate of the performances where they excel. No snarky nudge-nudge references to Gibson's actual troubles, as if the review is some kind of fucking roast or public hearing. But he DOES gleam briefly about how the character and Gibson share interesting parallels.
If you think you can write a better movie review, I challenge you to hold this up as a benchmark-- I couldn't write one as good as this.

If it was your 13 year old daughter Polanski sexually assaulted, I have no doubt you'd still
be first in line to see 'Carnage' because you wouldn't . . .
" . . . want to disservice yourself from not seeing it!"
TOSSER !!!
And you can fuck that hypocritical cunt Jodie Foster while you're at it.

If I were to judge whether or not to support the work of actors and musicians based on what they've done in their personal lives, I'd miss out on a ton of fantastic stuff.
Jimmy Page regularly slept with 14 year old girls. John Wayne was a racist and a homophobe. W.C. Fields was an abusive drunk who liked to smack women around. Chuck Berry videotaped women in the bathrooms of a motel he owned. Show me a famous and talented artist and I'll show you someone who has more skeletons in his closet than in the fucking Sedlec Ossuary.
Mel Gibson drinks a lot, says inappropriate things when he's drunk, and smacked around a money-grubbing woman who drove him to madness. He's a passionate man, and that shines through in almost all of his performances. Unfortunately, it also rears its ugly head in his day-to-day life occasionally, and, being under the microscope of celebrity, it makes it all the worse.
You can hate Mel Gibson the man and still appreciate Mel Gibson the artist. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Hollywood has made it clear that it will defend child rapists and even nominate them for Academy Awards. Will they nominate Mel Gibson, a man who has serious personal and possibly mental problems, for an award too? Probably not, especially since he doesn't fit into their world politically. I suppose that if he were an admitted left-winger and atheist, he'd be first to receive a nomination regardless of his drunken/prejudiced rants.
I guess well see what happens. But like others, everything I've seen indicates that the man gave a performance of a lifetime in this movie. I think all of those years not acting helped the best come out of him again. He was fresh and on his game. What a shame if the ART isn't recognized and properly awarded.

I only wish more people would think like you do.
I'm a HUGE fan of Mel Gibson, the ACTOR, not the person necessarily. He's a wonderful actor and director, and he has the gift to bring us great entertainment. We shouldn't throw that away because of his personal life. I'd say the same for Charlie Sheen if he were a great actor/director, but he's not. He has little to offer in his profession.
I love the "Lethal Weapon" movies like crazy, but it stars two people who I now know have said or done things that I hate. Mel Gibson, and we all know what's going on with him, and Danny Glover, who has some very wild ideas about the world and who he calls friends(Hugo Chavez). Hell, even Glover has shown signs of anti-semitism himself. But do I start hating the Lethal Weapon movies because of that? No, because they're great movies, and I love the CHARACTERS those men have portrayed. The characters are different people, as hard as that concept is for some people to grasp.

i'm a fairly gay gay.
i'm used to being in the minority. picked on and so on. and like totally in line with the rest of my life. I'm like OMG. here i am. i'm in the minority about mel AGAIN.
i hate him as an actor. i mean PULLLEASE
but i love him as a man. AS A MAN TO A MAN. i mean. he always wants his cock sucked and he's anti-semite. talk about my life to a "T".
but he makes shitty movies. Payback. What Women Want. like. there's never enough cock sucking. there's face paint and panting. which is cool. but it's only cool in the context of cock sucking. i would've liked to see the various blondeheaded children of the Patriot engaged in various acts of handsome head, Mel extending his hands above his head, in triumphant ejaculation. i couldve used more native members in that other movie. about the missionaries and danny glover. he has huge nostrils.

I think what some commentators might be struggling with is the Roman adage of "vino veritas:" In wine, there is truth. Now Mel is a talented man, but he is also one screwed up dude. My own sense is that without serious intervention he is going to kill someone someday, or at least might make a strong effort in that direction. I certainly admit he is not as bad as some, but in Hollywood that is not exactly a sterling recommendation. In other words, when he hits the sauce the real Mel comes out, so watch out.
As for Passion of the Christ, I went because I was curious. The same reason I may go to see "The Beaver." I was struck by Gibson's statement that if people have a problem with the Passion it was because they have a problem with the Gospels. He is correct. If you do have a problem with the Gospels, and many do, do not see the movie. But I honestly (I'm an atheist, btw, with an interest in religions) did not see the movie as anti-semitic. Now, poor Mel obviously is, but as a passion play he did it so well that I think there was no way it was going to set off riots (as Passion Plays have had a long history of doing.) It took balls to make that movie and perhaps balls to watch it (my Christian friends at the time were all afraid to go see it, and begged me afterwards to tell me what it was like. What weenies.)
In short, I respect him as a filmmaker. I can have sympathy for him because of his very twisted father (though I'm unsure if that is the full explanation for his messed-up psych), but personally I prefer to keep my distance, in more ways than one. And I hope he keeps his distance from the rest of humanity as well.

I can't get the site to recognize my any password. and I've tried everything I can think of (even creating a brand new email account and trying to resign up (time was I was known as rabidfnark) And I know that the second I sign out...that's it, I'm done...again. Suggestions? Provided this actually registers.

the only reason you say that is because mel has not offended your race, ethnic group, religion, or self interest. I am a Jew, which is the singular of Jewish. And for the assholes who don't know any better it is the non-pejorative way that Jews refer to themselves in the singular. yeah I would miss out on lots of entertainment if I researched every entertainer and found something they said that was anti-Semitic.but guess what bubbeh? I dont have to research mel, it is plain as day. if you were of a group that mel constantly offended and yet you still supported him because ' he has talent' then you would be a self hating fool who values entertainment over your self esteem. mel can kiss my ass

The movie was not being "sat on" since 2009. They were still shooting as of summer 2010. I know...I was there, so was Ms. Foster. Regrettably, as I was making my way there, the Gibson story broke on the radio. And kudos to her for sticking by Mel (unlike certain hypocritical people on a comedy sequel or those who torpedoed his Viking film.) Gibson's a terrific actor AND director. BRAVEHEART stomps all over GLADIATOR, IMHO.

Mel Gibson has made anti-Semitic remarks. He made a movie out of the 'passion play', and last week, the Pope stated clearly that Catholicism doesn't blame the Jews. If you want to reject him as an actor for those remarks, or that film, that's totally fair. I don't.

Means you made a movie that people actually wanted to pay good money to see.
Not much more.
It certainly not is indicative of quality... but it certainly helps your ability to fund yourself to make more.
Also remember this, no filmmaker worth his salt... none, sets out to make a movie seen by very few. Everybody wants to be able to put butts in seats because if your movies don't find an audience, you aren't much of a filmmaker.

Listen, we can blah blah about Gibson and his all too real life. That russkie gold-digger got Mel at the right time, when he was looking for new trim. He was weak....like must of us, and she was there...willing and able. That's his shit, and he's handling it. And anit like he raped some little girl and fled the country like a pussy! He's taking it like a MAN...LIKE FUCKIN' MEL GIBSON!
Mel is still Mel, I will always support him. And I love Jodie Foster, so I'm there.
Fuck those who are "CONFLICTED".

calling someone who is Jewish a Jew is not offensive except in the minds of the pc police and those who think they have turned the singular usage into a pejorative -and fuck them up the ass with a blowtorch. you can call me a Jew and you can mean it any way you like, the fact is I AM a Jew and damn proud of it. as for you being offended by mel but still willing to give him your money, you gotta deal with that problem yourself bubbeh. says more about you than anything else.

And then I thought, "What if it had been one of my daughters?" Then I wasn't conflicted anymore. My attitude would be, "You don't have to extradite him. Send me to him. Give me a baseball bat and half an hour in a room with him."
PAD

Truthfully, if my interests are upset, I won't spend money on a film to make someone I dislike richer, that's for sure. And if I were Jewish, I might, to some degree, dislike Mel Gibson; if I were Muslim, I might dislike Glen Beck. I don't really feel at ALL at odds with anti-Christianity people, though.

Whenever that topic comes up, for some reason my mind always goes that photographer who took the pictures of the starving child in Sudan (I think?) and then won the Pulitzer for it (he killed himself fairly soon after, I think). I'm always torn in those kinds of debates. It's great to have art, but at what cost? Polanski: I saw The Ghost Writer and thought it was fantastic. Gibson: I actually kind of dug Edge of Darkness. But yeah, a small part of me does kind of go, "Jeez, I'm basically supporting these guys and their behavior." But then I think about my enjoyment of the films... So confused; can't we all just agree that the only thing we agree on is that Shanghai Knights is actually funnier than people give it credit for??

to me, there is no conflict. i will put it this way. did the two hours you spent enjoying polanskis movie change your life in any way? but, did the fact that you - and others were willing to pay money to an admitted pedophile change his life for the better yes it did. i dont equate polanski to mel. no way. but to me the answer is simple. if my monetary or other support for someone i personally find offensive will help them to continue doing things or having a platform for saying things that i find offensive, then i am the damn fool for continuing to support them regardless their talent.

Yes is the correct response.
This might shock you but not everyone in the world wants to go watch a film in which they know they will see extended bloody scenes of someone getting beaten, then have nails driven through their flesh and bone and get hung on a fucking cross. Because, you know, it's pretty gross.
Ironically though, a bunch of head in the sand dumb shit Christians that were probably the same exact people bitching to the newspapers and tv stations and anyone that would fucking listen in their Sunday sermons every year a new Saw movie came about about pointless torture and violence travelled in caravans to go see The Passion because they wanted to all raise their hands up in the air and be closer to Jesus.
So Scenic, take your head out of your ass, read a little about evolution, and realize that not every person in the world needs to go see The Passion(or else they will go to hell).
And also, that someone saying that a movie full of torture and violence that any sane fucking person would call gross, is gross, is not the same fucking thing as saying "Jesus is gross."
But you're a dumb cunt, so that probably went over your head.
Oh, and just for you: Jesus IS gross. That fucking ratty beard, and living in a time where people took baths like, uh, never? And were missing their teeth by the time they could fuck. Gross gross gross. Jesus is gross, fucker.

I definitely understand your argument, and I CERTAINLY understand hating someone who is capable of rape... However, I have to ask, and not in an argumentative way, do you believe people can change? I feel like sometimes that question gets lost in these kinds of debates.

Another question, does the fact that he made The Pianist, which shed some more light on a tragic time in world history, get totally erased by his past transgressions? He gets no credit for that? In your opinion?

Gibson's got charisma up the wazoo, can ladel out the charm faster than these talkbacks degenerate into name-calling, and pops with an on-the-edge intensity that everybody's heard manifest itself in real life.
To say he's a great actor though, not so sure. Reliable yep, and at his best you can't take your eyes off him, but I'm not sure he's yet shown the range to label him "great."
Am looking forward to seeing him in the Beaver, regardless, and would like to see him helm something again soon. I wasn't a big fan of Apocolypto, but he still did a good job with the material, and both Braveheart and Man Without a Face still hold up marvelously.

I have no doubt that he is a true talent. but talent does not erase his actions. as for the pianist, i never saw it or plan to. i was aware that brody won an academy award for it. i just looked the movie up on imdb. i doubt that the pianist was any more moving or shed any more light on the subject that did Roberto Benigni's Life is Beautiful, though. so once again the answer is no.

and most of you don't even know what the definition of "pedophile" is. Well dumb people frequent this site sometimes...whatever.
Mel Gibson has millions of dollars and doesn't care if you like his movie or not.

Christianity is fine for Christians, but for a jew--worshipping a man is repugnant. Wasn't saying that Jesus was gross. The thought of watching a film made to convince me that I should be worshipping a dude---that's what i was calling gross. And the thought of watching a film that says that I was personally to blame for torturing and killing a god/man. That isn't just gross---it's fucking twisted. So, no...I didn't watch it. Although I did watch a serbian film lol

Polanski did is not a personal subject anymore,it is a serious matter which must be addressed by the society following its moral and legal code.
really guys,if you are want to be responsible citizens of your country you should know about this stuff.

because the movie is fantastic and his performance is oscar worthy. I absolutely hate your patronising tone as if our feelings about his clear and blatant racism are not as important as Mels performance.

Don't know what world you live in, but Soviet gulags weren't exactly known for hosting "visiting hours" for foreign tourists much less Soviet citizens. Szpilman spent years trying to find out what happened to the German who saved him.

...not because of Mel Gibson, but because I can't imagine audiences checking out a movie called THE BEAVER that isn't a raunchy R-rated comedy.
Gibson has media troubles because most big media outlets decide to run stories (that carry money-making advertisements) about celeb meltdowns. They CHOSE to run stories of Gibson slurring jews in a drunken rant, to make an example of him, so he gets unflattering media coverage/torment until he runs away and hides (e.g., he doesn't seem to be doing any media for THE BEAVER).
If the media stormed every personal relationship having a messy disintegration or every drunken rant, people would turn off the news altogether. But the celebs are advertised through media saturation as entertainers, so they must entertain us - even if it's down into the gutter.
The only Gibson movies I've seen are the three MAD MAX movies, LETHAL WEAPON and THE PASSION so, I haven't really followed his career, but I hope (at least for Jodie Foster) the media's decided focus on Gibson's personal messes don't end up trashing what might be a decent flick.

Wait wait wait, people. So Mel Gibson's physical and verbal abuse towards women as well as his antisemitism and homophobia are results of mental illness, according to you. And Roman Polanski's pedophilia ISN'T a result of mental illness? Let's compare the two men vis-a-vis their developmental years, which would naturally affect their mental states. Mel grows up in Australia the son of a bible-thumping conservative who raises the boy as best he can. Mel goes to school, decides he likes acting. Yeah, that's definitely the childhood background that would lead to his problems. Roman grows up.... oh, right, a Jew in NAZI-OCCUPIED FUCKING POLAND, where he survives the FUCKING HOLOCAUST! Gee, I wonder where he got HIS mental problems?
I'm not excusing either behavior, but I think of the two Mel has far less reason to be the POS he is.

How about YOU read up on the Polanski case a little. Like maybe his motivation for fleeing the country, which was well-founded fear that the judge was going to renege on a plea deal that he offered prior. Which he wasn't supposed to make in the first place. The judge was corrupt. But hey, we can't all actually do our homework.
Again, not excusing Polanski. Just saying, there's a lot of ridiculous (and mostly uninformed) anger in this thread regarding the guy's crime. And frankly I'm tired of the straw man bullshit argument. "Mel's not so bad, at least he's not a pedophile." Dude, what the fuck ever.

the question is whether or not he's sincerely sorry for what he's done and what he's said and not because he's sorry he's been hurt by it rather that he's sorry he hurt other people
if he can convince people he's honestly sorry then i think with time people will forgive him
and i say this as a jew who was adopted by verbally and physically abusive and racist and homophobic christians. i would forgive my adopted parents if they would ever admit their wrong and apologize for it. it makes me roll my eyes when i hear people who mel gibson has never even directly hurt say they can't forgive him. i get being angry at him, but i don't get the inability to forgive if he sincerely says sorry.

Remember his "oven dodger" comment? This guy clearly hates Jews and is homophobic too. He's basically a modern day Nazi. The comments he made aren't just inappropriate or stupid. They are fucking EVIL! His attitudes are exactly the same ones that lead to genocide.
He just happens to busy himself with making movies. That can't be undone by an apology. He'll hate Jews and gays forever. He'll just get better St hiding it. And there are plenty of other evil people in the world who would secretly agree with him.

Gibson's 'evil' is on a NAZI government level?
Tell me why it was it in the mass media's interest to depict Gibson as a jew-hater so much, to reach people like you who further spread it on the Internet? Wouldn't it be MUCH better to have NOT propagated any of that 'hate' back into the public? Doesn't this serve to simply INSPIRE the others with 'secret evils' as you suggested?
"There's always a hidden evil and it never goes away" - this is CORE warfare propaganda. So, what exactly is the war campaign and who gains?
Here's a hint: most governments can train thousands and thousands of their young to kill some existing or yet-to-be-named enemy - always in the name of defense. This is probably the most systemic hate-speech / thought crime imaginable. Why is training the young to kill not 'publicly evil' and why are people like Mel Gibson being singled out as 'secretly evil'?
This is just one example, but I bring this up since it's never mentioned that political figures have "secret thoughts" about the people/nations they've PUBLICLY bombed, killed, occupied or invaded. They get away with it all the time all over the world, because THE SUGGESTION OF EVIL is essential. It grants social and legal immunity of the other socially accepted evils going on right in front of our face.

I used the word 'dislike' for both Beck and Gibson purposefully. I am neither Jewish nor Muslim. My point was, I could understand your desire not to put money into the hands of someone who makes a film like Passion or gets drunk and suggests the Jewish people are responsible for all wars, even if you may have once appreciated him as an actor. You're right. My interests aren't affected. BUT-- I want you to understand that it isn't selfish disregard for the Jewish people or their faith playing a factor; I wouldn't boycott a movie by an avowed atheist. I equally do not boycott movies by actors, producers, or directors who give money to Israel or defend the settling in the West Bank. I equally do not boycott movies and productions because Kelsey Grammer is involved, or because Rupert Murdoch is involved. But I'd definitely have a right to not put my money into the hands of someone I didn't like... I just wouldn't expect you, or anyone else, to boycott a movie because of my interests.

While people are enjoying knocking Polanski around for the sake of an argument, remember that the majority of folks frequenting this site enjoy Luc Besson's films, and the man has had a habit of dating 13-year-olds. See the Leon DVD's 10 year retrospective for details.

Mr Gibson deserves to be berated for his recent behaviour, not the stuff with his recent wife, no one knows what went on there and I care not to pass judgement, but the recorded stuff from his rants to cops and the rest, that's unacceptable.
That's Mel the man.
Mel the actor, on the otherhand, is a different story, I have enjoyed his films for years, Gallipoli, Mad Max, Lethal Weapon, Conspiracy Theory, Ransom, Payback and most recently Edge Of Darkness.
Watching EoD I realised how much I had missed him as an actor on the big screen, how few actors of his calibre there really were on the scene at the moment.
Regardless of his drunken rants, his religious intolerance or his inability to edit whats in his head before it gets to his mouth, I will always enjoy his professional work, while being able to feel annoyed by his verbal diarrhea.
It no longer amazes me that the fake world of celebrity, the media sh1t storm that has risen about the slightest mis-step by professionals working in entertainment, don't mind them inflicting this crap on z-listers whose only purpose is to keep some sort of public profile and so get naked/swear whatever as a means to an end.
People who are in the industry are not just like the rest of us, I could not do what they do, I couldn't, neither could most of you, so cut Mel a little slack, let him atone, or at least work.

Mel Gibson did a good performance but i have to mention that Anton Yelchin did a great performance too, both are the main characters of the movie, it´s a shame that he will be underrated for it, because all the atention is going to focus to mel controversy.

I honestly couldn't care less what Gibson's opinion about my faith or people is. I don't know that I'd be anxious to socialize with him. But it's of no relevance in deciding whether or not I want to see a film of his. The person is the person; the work is the work. I try not to confuse the two.
Oh, and yes: One Jew. Two Jews. Singular and plural nouns. "Jewish" is the adjective, the description. For instance, Israel is the Jewish state. One state. Jewish.
Everyone clear on that?
PAD

like I said earlier, if my monetary or other support for someone i personally find offensive will help them to continue doing said offensive things or having a platform for saying things that i find offensive, then i am the damn fool for continuing to support them regardless their talent. really if someone cant stand me or my race but i still give him my money and support because he entertains me for a few hours, then i am weak minded fool

I don't care if Mel Gibson made a film as good as Citizen Kane. Until such time as he renounces his anti-Semitic views and his crazy father's denial of the Holocaust, I'm not spending a dollar to support this hate-filled bigot, and I'm sure I'm far from alone in feeling this way. There are too many other talented actors and movie-makers who deserve our support instead.

I can identify with that. I think he needs help, and I am willing to give him a chance until he does something TRULY over the line. We all say and do things that we don't mean, Mel is no different, it's just that the whole world hears about it when he screws up. I am still a fan.
Besides, he's the fucking Road Warrior.

For those here like scenic, who say that Mel only blames the Jews for Christ's death in THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, you probably haven't watched the film, and are just going off of what you've heard other people say. He puts equal blame on the Jews and Romans, you know, just like the Bible/history does.

...perhaps the quirkiest movie de Palma ever made, even more than Get To Know Your Rabbit.
Saw it again a few years ago, and didn't enjoy it as much as previously; but Gerrit Graham is still great as the founder of Spartanetics ("What is Spartanetics?" "Those who know, know"; "...brave Spartan lads, dancing into battle..."). And as Maltin says in his review, "Nobody eats a hamburger like (Nancy) Allen." Whatever happened to her anyway?
Thanks for the memory jog (if you ever see this way down here).

We have disagreed with each other many times, but we are in agreement for once. If Mel is genuinely apologetic about his behavior he should be forgiven. There is something to be said about the redemptive power of forgiveness. If he were to show some contrition pertaining to his actions, and was to be forgiven by some Jews publicly, it might go a long way in redeeming not only his public persona, but more importantly it could go a long way to redeeming his soul.
P.S. I am very sorry for the way you were treated by your adopted parents. I hope it has not colored your view of all Christians in the same way. There is enough Christian hate and Christian bashing on this site, but by people who I'm sure, have not a quarter of the possible reasons that you might. While it might be difficult to not see all followers of a certain denomination based on the most visible representatives of it, most followers of every major religion do not adhere to the awful behavior of the more highly publicized members.

ok so let me get this straight. So it doesn't matter about the really disgusting Anti-Semitic, Homophobic and Racist comments, along with the fact that he's a wife beater. We should find it in our hearts to forgive him. Somehow, to you, if one is not directly affected by his comments or actions, should not be offended by them.
Sorry mate, you're obviously very religious but I am not. I find, from his actions, Mel to be a disgusting excuse for a human being. He's rich and powerful, but I think he's learning a very hard lesson in that people can turn on you if you're not nice!

. . . I could not care less about this film because I cannot separate the horrible behavior of Mel Gibson in order to suspend my disbelief that he can play a man who's likable but flawed.
I don't think I will see a Mel Gibson movie again.
Unless he's in a Mad Max sequel, in which case, . . . maybe.

I got it obviously. I don't give a shit about what folks say about Mel. That golddigging bitch deserved all she got. Mel is just a man's man with a girly name. Great actor/director deserves a comeback.

His abuse of women is far more problematic (and I'm Jewish - we're used to bigoted morons). Foster's adamant support of Gibson astonishes me - it's as if she's pleased to be his "token lesbian feminist" friend, to the point where she totally overlooks his misogyny and abusive nature.
Whatever their bond is, I wish them well, because this movie won't make a dime. It won't appeal to the young adults who loved "Donnie Darko," Yelchin and Lawrence aren't a big enough draw for teens (The Hunger Games notwithstanding), and the few adults who will watch his movies want Gibson to play yet another variation on his "Lethal Weapon" role. It's doomed.

"How about YOU read up on the Polanski case a little. Like maybe his motivation for fleeing the country, which was well-founded fear that the judge was going to renege on a plea deal that he offered prior. Which he wasn't supposed to make in the first place. The judge was corrupt. But hey, we can't all actually do our homework. "
Actually i have read up his case,in fact i have posted articles here about the case to inform ignorant defenders of that asshole like you.
And yes the judge was corrupt but in favor of Polanski when he made his first court decision.Unless in the USA the usual punishment for child rapists is to send them in a 3-month psychotherapy.
"
Again, not excusing Polanski. Just saying, there's a lot of ridiculous (and mostly uninformed) anger in this thread regarding the guy's crime. And frankly I'm tired of the straw man bullshit argument. "Mel's not so bad, at least he's not a pedophile." Dude, what the fuck ever."
Mel verbally and presumably physically assaulted his wife.Domestic violence is a reprehensible crime and it must be punished but in NO FUCKING WAY it is compared to drugging and raping a child.
capis?

I don't give up on family and friends. Actors/entertainers I don't give a fuck about. If they show a side I don't agree with or don't like, then I'm afraid they don't deserve a second chance. Not from me anyway!

Whereas to me it just makes them better than Mel Gibson.
Furthermore, you might contend that director Jodie Foster likewise doesn't deserve your support because she hired Gibson. Okay, but what about the writers of the screenplay? They don't deserve support? They finally beat all the odds by having their film made, and your attitude is, "Screw you, it stars a guy who has dumbass beliefs, so I refuse to see your movie?" What about the other actors? The ADs, the grips, the lighting guys, the best boy. What did the best boy ever do to deserve no support? For that matter, what about the movie theater showing it? Mel Gibson already got paid; the movie theater is the one counting on your money, not him.
You're free, of course, to operate entirely within your comfort level, but I see no point in insulting people simply because they don't share your priorities, or don't feel like refusing to support hundreds of people, none of whom are Mel Gibson, simply because he's an asshole.
PAD

you'd have to have walked a mile in his shoes. And, he'd have to be an artist.
I was wondering why there was a new Mel Gibson mug shot floating around.
Bitch has a new movie to promote.
I won't see this for three reasons, and one of them's got his hand up a puppet hole.

they will never support Mel and his movies ever again because of his beliefs and his marriage problem,they will be the first ones to go to the cinema and watch his new Mad Max film if he ever decides to make that.and thats a fact.

Mad Max is one of those actors you can sit and watch and enjoy his performance even in an otherwise boring movie(not saying this sounds boring).
A shame his personal life has been a mess and halted his career somewhat. Hope he's back now and finally gets to do that Viking epic he was planning (the one Jack Titanic walked out on).

"Defamation"
(in parts) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5jsiLWXGYQ
(the whole movie) http://tinyurl.com/23wpm5s
Linked above is a great documentary (by a jewish filmmaker from Israel) about 'anti-semitism'. He doesn't go the easy way covering the usual suspects (white supremacists, religious extremists, neo-NAZIs, etc.), Instead he asks why he's personally being exposed to 'anti-semites', NAZIs and holocaust coverage almost every day IN THE NEWS AND MEDIA. He seeks answers all over the world, and from the most well-funded and powerful groups fighting 'anti-semitism'. The results don't end up being news bites.
The journey goes from his grandmother, all the way to the jewish 'Anti-Defamation League' and Israel's military doing photo-ops at WWII's burial grounds. If anything, it's startling to watch the jewish government traumatize and re-traumatize their young citizens until they hate and fight any form of 'NAZI', who just never seem to go away! Those seeking rational discourse, he finds, opens the gates to being called a 'secretly self-hating jew', 'secret holocaust denier' or whatever label could halt all thinking in the direction he is going.

"I don't watch Gibson or Polanski movies because that's the same as devil-worship." Fuck off.
Did you ever watch or read Alice in Wonderland? Lewis Carroll was a paedophile too. Oops, now there's another one you have to boycott. Better make sure that little Timmy stays away from that evil book, Dad. Keep it up and at this rate you won't have any books, movies or music left. Better play it safe and go find all your entertainment needs at the Bible shop.

I wanna share some others with you too:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/the-case-against-alan-dershowitz-by-frank-j-menetrez/
http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/greatgulf.cfm
I find Norman Finkelstein a enlightening and righteous man. As you know, he was featured in Yoav Shamir's documentary. A son of Holocaust survivors, he blows the lid off the sinister Holocaust Industry. He is on record as saying that he trusts the German government more than the dirty Zionist fronts like the Anti-Defamation League.
Here's a video of him taking down an ADL plant during a lecture:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8b_1264771682

"Every single member of my family on both sides were exterminated. Both my parents were in the Warsaw ghetto uprising and it's precisely and exactly because of the lessons my parents taught me and my two siblings, that I will not be silent when Israel commits its crimes against the Palestinians. I consider nothing more despicable than to use their suffering and their martyrdom [of his relatives] to try and justify the torture, the brutalization, the demolition of homes that Israel daily commits against the Palestinians. So I refuse any longer to be intimidated, or browbeaten by the tears. If you had any heart you'd be crying for the Palestinians."
I would urge DocPazuzu and his filthy ilk to take heed. You can call us anti-semites or self-loathing Jews until you're blue in the face, but that will only strengthen our resolve to take you and your murderous agenda down. Suck it.

...you really ARE afraid of me, aren't you? This is the umpteenth time where you'll see a poke from me in a TB, wait a few days until you think I'm not looking any more, and then post some straw man bullshit hoping that I won't see it.
<p>
Well guess what, dickhead -- I saw it.
<p>
I have no issue -- I repeat: no issue -- with people who criticize the use of the Holocaust as a means to achieve dubious ends.
<p>
However, I DO have an issue with scumsucking swine like you who try to convince people that the numbers of Holocaust dead have been exaggerated by a count of millions in order to invalidate the exterminations.
<p>
Let's see you ooze your way out of that one, you malignant, anti-Semitic fuck.

Regarding the behind-the-scenes folk who work on The Beaver, who may be unduly punished by Mel's high-profile role on this project and its (possible) resulting lousy box-office, isn't it fair to point out that each of them CHOSE to work on a flick with Mad Mel?
If Mel Gibson became the EIC of Marvel Comics tomorrow, would you still consider working for them?

Let's get something straight for the record:
So you believe that the numbers of Holocaust dead are inflated to call sympathy for the Jewish state? And the ADL is lying also to excuse the actions of Israel against the Palis?

"Regarding the behind-the-scenes folk who work on The Beaver, who may be unduly punished by Mel's high-profile role on this project and its (possible) resulting lousy box-office, isn't it fair to point out that each of them CHOSE to work on a flick with Mad Mel?"
Well, it's fair, but it's also inaccurate. The writer, for instance, has zero say as to who's cast. The property is optioned and from that point it's out of the writer's hands.
Nor do you know at what point the crew was signed on. Gibson might not have been attached when they were hired.
Are you now suggesting that the writer refuse to have his name appear on the film because of Gibson? Are you suggesting that the crew quit, walk off a job, give up money that they need to feed their family, and probably in violation of union contracts? Are you suggesting that theaters refuse to show the film, defying the wishes of people who would like to see it, in order to accommodate the desires of people such as you who weren't going to be buying tickets in the first place?
Putting aside the irony of people who don't even sign their real names to their opinions demanding that others take high-flown moral stances, I think you're demanding a good deal of sacrifice from other people over an issue that is literally costing you nothing.
PAD

You inferred quite a bit from my question that honestly wasn't there. I certainly didn't "demand" anything from the film's crew; I merely suggested that anyone who works on a Gibson film at this particular time could be taking a career risk by doing so. I don't think that's such an outrageous statement. I'd say the same for anyone working on a Pulanksi film, or even a Woody Allen movie. I'm not saying that choosing to work on a Gibson flick is a bad move on anyone's part; I am saying that it's their choice, and people are responsible for their choices. I'll concede that the writer, and probably other staff members, didn't have a clue that Gibson would be attached. But I'd also argue that the majority of the crew did know that Mel was the star when they were hired, as this movie was in development for ages before it finally went before the cameras.
You are correct that I most likely wouldn't be seeing this movie anyway, though.

"I merely suggested that anyone who works on a Gibson film at this particular time could be taking a career risk by doing so. I don't think that's such an outrageous statement."
I agree, I don't think that's outrageous. I think that's ridiculous. Do you seriously believe that when someone is up for a gig as a grip or an AD on a movie, the fact that they worked on "The Beaver" is going to cost them the job? It's absurd.
I was simply endeavoring to make two points: First, that when you refuse to support a film, you're refusing to support every single person connected with it even though they've said or done nothing (to your knowledge) to warrant it. And second, the only one's you're REALLY going to be hurt are the movie theaters who book the films. Which prompts the question of: What's the end game? Theaters don't book Gibson's films? Except the ones being screwed over then are people who like Gibson's films. What did THEY ever do to deserve such treatment?
And since you admit that the writers and other key personnel didn't know Gibson would be involved, I'd say, Okay. So that brings us back around to the question of why they deserve to have people refusing to see their film just because one of the actors is a dick.
"But I'd also argue that the majority of the crew did know that Mel was the star when they were hired, as this movie was in development for ages before it finally went before the cameras."
To which I would say: So what? Again, what would you suggest? That they refuse to take the job? I've noticed that fans are very free with suggesting that other people take a stand that would cost them a paycheck while the fans making the suggestions lose nothing.
As for turning up instances of performers whose careers have been damaged by working with Polanski or Allen...good luck with providing actual proof of that.
Ultimately, to me, it comes down to this: I don't give a damn about Mel Gibson's attitudes toward Jews. Why? Because he's an actor. I care about his attitudes toward his acting. If he shows up to the set on time, knows his lines, hits his marks, and puts in 110% effort on the screen, why should I care what he says when he's drunk somewhere? If he were running for public office, THEN I would have a problem with supporting him.
PAD

...since you're not only scum, but also an intellectual coward who has never been able to hold his own in a debate with me. Ever.
<p>
More importantly though, why haven't you answered Danger Dave's question?
<p>
(Cue the miraculous yet predictable arrival of "THE_CHOPPAH" who then engages in a "witty" exchange of one-liners with BSB in order to deflect attention from his repellent views. Convenient to say the least.)

I get it now. You're jealous of The Choppah. Maybe if you had even a shred of humor people would pay you some attention too.
Anyway, I answered DangerDave in the Japan Trek talkback. You should also be aware of the fact that Dave referred to Palestinians as "Pallies", which I'm sure you know is the Israeli equivalent of the N word.
No doubt you'll admonish him for being a vile, reprehensible bigot. Now git.

yes you are quite correct that it is very easy for people whose livelihoods are not on the line to say what they think others should do. i never called for a boycott of mel gibson though, i simply said i will not support him. you are correct that he has his money and i am only affecting the theater chain and distributors - well they will survive not getting my money. but if enough people felt the same as i do, then the distributors would pressure the producers who would then deem mel to be b.o. poison.
if mel got drunk once and spouted off, i could care less. but he has displayed a pattern of behavior that cannot be ignored by me whose livelihood is not on the line, but whose principles are.
you live with your principles and rationalize any way you choose, I will live with mine.

I knew it.
I knew he didn't have the balls to call DangerDave on HIS racism.
Why? Because the ONLY thing he cares about is labeling someone anti-semitic, as that is the only racism he cares about.
Sure, he couches his arguments as though he denounces all forms of racism. He pretends to be fair and even-handed. But his hypocrisy, his disingenuity, his fake-ass act, has been exposed tonight.
And with barely any effort. All too easy.

"if mel got drunk once and spouted off, i could care less. but he has displayed a pattern of behavior that cannot be ignored by me whose livelihood is not on the line, but whose principles are."
Whereas my principles are staked to the notion that it's inherently unfair to punish the many simply because of the actions of the one.
My principles also state that the best way to respond to intolerance is with tolerance, hopefully in order to show the person who is intolerant that those he hates are perfectly capable of treating him in a far better way than he would treat them. If he believes that Jews are out to get him, why feed into the delusion by being out to get him?
My principles are based on being reasonable. Yours are based on pure emotion. The fact is that refusing to support your local movie theater because you don't like Mel Gibson makes no sense. What'd the theater ever do to you? The fact that your desire to see Gibson's career destroyed even though it would be unfair to people who like his screenwork makes no sense. What did THEY ever do to you? It's vindictive and intolerant. But that doesn't matter to you because you're coming at it from an angle of pure anger. And that's fine, as long as you realize that that's what you're doing.
PAD

Paki actually IS a derogatory term, whereas Pally is not. But who are we kidding here -- you already know all this, just like you know you're lying about the Holocaust dead just to further your own hideous political agenda.
<p>
You're an obtuse cunt, BSB, and always have been. But then again, sleazy ducking 'n' dodging is to be expected from someone who can't argue and instead brings nebulous arguments and a dearth of facts to the table.

As usual, BSB, you've got nothing.
<p>
I'll tell you what: name as many respected scholars and/or historians you can that support your claims that the number of Holocaust victims has been exaggerated by millions and for each one I will counter with five who refute them.
<p>
What's that you say? They've all been paid off by the Israeli government and therefore lack all believability? There, I saved you the trouble of posting the only defense you can possibly have in the face of such withering opposition.
<p>
You really are a swine, BSB.

...perhaps you'd like to back up your assertions about the word "pally"? What you're too dense to see is that there are a number of derogatory terms certain Israelis use for Palestinians, none of which are actual short for "Palestinian" (like "pally") since they don't actually believe that Palestinians exist.
<p>
You must REALLY be hard up for arguments if you're resorting to inventing derogatory words instead of addressing actual, you know, issues.

Why don't you enlighten us on those derogatory terms Israelis use for Palestinians?
Israelis don't believe Palestinians actually exist? That's kinda unfair, don't you think, considering they demand the Palestinians recognize the right of Israel to exist.
But when your whole nation is founded on a racist premise, fairness is never a factor.

...thy name is bringingsexyback.
<p>
As you can clearly see, I said "certain" Israelis, that is, racist Israelis who couldn't care less if Israel is recognized by the Arab world, much less by Palestinians whose existence they deny so as to not have to return any occupied lands.
<p>
FAIL.
<p>
Ah, there you go again, just like old times -- as soon as someone disagrees with you, they're either "Jews" or "Israelis". Like I said, REALLY hard up for actual arguements.
<p>
FAIL.
<p>
Keep it up, you fucking loser.

By someones behavior that is. At what point does behavior outweigh your commendable views on the welfare of innocent workers who happen to be connected to the offensive party through no fault of their own? Is. It Michael jackson level. Oj Simpson level. Michael vick level. Charlie sheen level. Glen beck level. Bill oreilly level. Jon landis level. Sarah palin level. At what point does your sympathy for the innocent working man who helps support the offensive party diminish?
Never?
if so we should always turn other cheek.
How very Gandhian of you.
Im not that good of a person.

And he always does. With the exception of Edge of Darkness which was freaking horrible. I don't know the guy or what he believes. His Father lives outside of a goofy, anti-society compound in the mountains of West Virginia. Who knows what that man put him through when he was a kid? I do know that his ex had plenty of time to doctor whatever recordings she made public to scoop up more of his money. As a person, Sean Penn and I have completely different beliefs. But, he entertains me both as an actor and a director. Polanski on the other hand raped a kid and fled the country. He will never get a penny of my money.

What makes you think I never feel a sense of outrage? I've never said that. The fact that you're bringing up Bill O'Reilly and his ilk indicates to me that you're really not quite grasping what I've been saying.
For instance, as a liberal, I wouldn't be supporting the likes of Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck in the first place because the things they say are repugnant to me. But their opinions ARE their living. They produce material that simply is not something I'm interested in. Likewise, my earlier response about how, if Gibson were running for office, I wouldn't vote for him, should answer your question about Sarah Palin.
All I'm saying is that if somebody whose work you've previously enjoyed has said something stupid or turned out to be something of a douche, so what? If the work they're turning out is still of interest to you, I see no reason to deprive yourself. Furthermore you're well into "let he who is without sin" territory, which is always a bit of a slippery slope.
I don't pretend to be Gandhi. I'm just someone who is capable of not letting the imperfections of an entertainer as a person interfere with my ability to watch him portray a character.
PAD

this line of yours makes no sense to me
"Furthermore you're well into "let he who is without sin" territory, which is always a bit of a slippery slope."
I clearly state that I am no Gandhi. I clearly state that I am not that good or that selfless and forgiving.
I clearly have committed a sin or 3032, but who is counting?
my whole point is that some acts, some behavior can not simply be passed off by saying 'well that is the person not the artist'. hate the sin love the sinner. yeah, well not my style. i'm not that good. i can be forgiving, but to the best of my knowledge ol mel has yet to ask for such, and if he did the first time, he damn sure screwed that with the second and third acts. at some point you (or at least me) have to say, why am i continuing to support someone who truly hates me and my race?
you may think you are the better man than mel because you are able to overlook his 'indiscretions' because you like his talent. but mel just laughs at your type.
at what point does someones negative acts or behavior - someone that you liked in the past, finally overcome your turning of the cheek?
is there such a point that is all I am asking. forget mel at this time, is there anyone who you like as an artist that could commit an act that would cause you to no longer support them?

Well, "he who is without sin" is generally associated with Jesus, not Gandhi.
It has less to do with "what would someone have to do so that you wouldn't support them" than it is acknowledging that none of us are perfect and each of us has foibles. You're trying to push the question to extremes, except the question isn't about extremes.
What would you have me say? If Mel Gibson murdered someone, would I support him? Well, no. But the question's moot because if he killed someone, he's not going to be making any more movies. So there's nothing to support or not support. Hollywood isn't big on casting murderers in films. Just ask OJ.
PAD

first, i should have known that was Jesus and not Gandhi, just not up to date on christian sayings.the oj example is a good one. a few years ago, oj was denied a dinner at a fancy and ridiculously expensive steak house in Louisville. he was with an entourage and you can expect that meal would have run into the thousands. the owner was so outraged that he cut into his own livelihood (ok that is going too far cause dude is already rich). still, he took a stand, even if it was actually popular, it was still a principled stand.
so, outside of murder nothing else would stop you from supporting an artist you liked?
i just think that somewhere a line must be drawn that says mere entertainment value is not as important as my principles when it comes to someone who hates me and my entire race just because.
if it was easy, to do it would not matter. yeah, i love the road warrior movie and since i bought it on dvd long before mels views became known, ill watch it. but until mel makes that long overdue apology - a real one, i will not spend one dime on his movies. my self imposed boycott will not affect the caterers and key grips, but it will make me feel better

Like everybody else appears to be, since even Kobe isn't taking up your cause.
Frankly, I don't feel any obligation to convince you of anything. Who are you to demand that I, or anyone else, present evidence to you?
If anything, you should be the one to convince me, since you're the one who has a problem with my beliefs.
So if you're determined to make me see the light I suggest you take a page from Peter David's book and engage me in a reasonable way. I'm enjoying his posts quite a lot, and learning from him. And as you can see, not once did he call Kobe a fucktard.

...it's that faux indignant horseshit you invariably trot out when you're on the ropes.
<p>
Not once have I "demanded" anything from you. What I have done is challenge your intellectual courage to back up your patently false claims. Since an overwhelming majority of the world's scholars support my views I'd say the pressure is on YOU to provide some seriously compelling evidence to the contrary. This is all academic, however, since you know as much as I do that not even you believe that shit and that you're simply parroting the neo-Nazi position in order to further your political and bigoted aims.
<p>
You are an utter failure at debating this.

Your self-imposed exile really won't impact on grips, etc. In point of fact, it won't impact on Gibson either. The only one who is really going to be impacted on is you because you were a fan of his and you allowed the person he is to cripple your enjoyment of the actor he is. So that's kind of a shame.
I'm just curious how far you intend to carry your principles. For instance, it's fairly obvious that Charlie Sheen is anti-semitic. His "Chaim Levine" comment signals that. Obviously Carlos Estevez isn't appalled by the notion of changing one's name for showbiz, so it has to be that he's saying, "Look at this Jew who's making my life difficult." But there's now news that CBS is trying to make a move to get Sheen back on board his series. If that happens, do you cease watching "Two and a Half Men?" Okay. But he's getting a million an episode from CBS. So if you really want to show your lack of support, you need to stop watching CBS. And CBS is owned by Viacom, which also owns Nickelodeon and MTV, so if for some reason you're watching either of those, your principles demand you'd better stop.
But...where do networks get their support? From sponsors. So your principles demand that you better stop buying any products from any of those sponsors, because by supporting them, you're supporting CBS, and by supporting CBS, you're supporting Charlie Sheen.
Except...how will you know who's advertising on CBS? You'd have to watch it to know...except you can't because your principles won't allow it. So now you're screwed.
Plus Sheen had to have learned his attitudes from somewhere, so I hope you're planning to not support Martin Sheen. Let's hope to God he doesn't get a series on another channel.
And by the way, to bring it back around to Gibson, the bottom line is that any coverage AICN provides "The Beaver" just gives publicity to someone you hate. Really, you should be boycotting AICN as well.
All of this if you're taking a stand based on principles.
So, y'know, good luck with that.
PAD

Up to this point i thought you merely blinded by celebrity and a slave to your craving for entertainment vs making any principled stand. But if you are really serious with that last post that desperately attempts to paint any principled stand against something you find offensive and say that in essence a person must then abstain from contact with even the most tangentially related people places or things, well sir that is absurd in the extreme.
Applying you're 'logic' any human being that opposes anyone must actually oppose every human on the planet. Yes. Really. Re read tour post. I don't watch two and half men but according to you if i did and opposed sheen i would have to oppose cbs sponsors everyone who bought from sponsors etc. So using your specious 'logic' anyone opposed to hitler hates all austrians and all germans Jews included amd since austrians are human last time i checked by inference that means all humans are included. See where that so called 'logic' of yours leads to?
You took it to extreme i merely extrapolated the end result of such a ridiculous assertion.
And you did not answer what you would do if mel was a fan and requested an autograph. You said you would not socialize with him but would you give him a memento?

See you said if i opposed charlie i would have to include martin because hr learned his attitudes from someone. Well martin must have learned his attitudes from someone or thing since nothing happens in a vacuum. Martin is catholic. So that must mean all catholics. Catholics are christian. Christianity started with a Jew.
Ya follow?
Ya see how utterly ridiculous that line of argument is?
You need a mulligan

March 23, 2011, 11:33 a.m. CST

by Peter David

"But if you are really serious with that last post that desperately attempts to paint any principled stand against something you find offensive and say that in essence a person must then abstain from contact with even the most tangentially related people places or things, well sir that is absurd in the extreme."
No, I'm not saying that. I'm suggesting that it's not principles so much as that Mel Gibson pissed you off and, since you cannot separate the artist from the person, you've decided you can't watch his films anymore because all you see is someone who doesn't like Jews. Which is too bad for you.
That, and I was trying to underscore the absurdity of your tactic which is to repeatedly ask, "Well, how far can someone go before you won't support them as a creator?" Reductio ad absurdum is an easy game to play. Anyone can do it.
I didn't see your question about autographs; it must have popped up while I was replying to the earlier one. You're asking if I met Gibson, face to face, and he said he was a big fan and asked for my autograph? I'd say, "You realize I'm a Jew, right? Still want my autograph?" And we'd see where it went from there. It might make for an interesting conversation.
And now I think I'll invoke Godwin's law since you felt the need to invoke Hitler.
PAD

He made an armload of movies with Richard Donner, who is Jewish. He also did most of them with Danny Glover, who's black. He also did a movie with Goldie Hawn, who's a Jewish woman.
That's the thing people can't get over with him. He's really not a racist - he doesn't act upon the impulses that a true racist would (that is, to harm others). He just has the same biases and weaknesses WE ALL have. The unfortunate thing is that alcohol (and drugs in Sheen's case) breaks down his ability to censor and control himself.
BTW, thanks for correcting my Yiddish. Just checked out your bio - greetings from a fellow NYU alum.

You made on of the most ridiculous argumentative assertions i have seen on here in a while outside. Of BSB trolling, and it totally undermined any point you tried to make.
But it never came close to addressing my point. Which is. When do you take a principled stand against someone or thing you find offensive?
At what point does entertainment value cease being sole criteria for your continued support?
i am taking my stand not because Mel pissed me off but because he hates my entire race and yours
Do you really think mel cares if you feel superior because you think you are bigger person? No mel laughs at you because he can hate your race and you still support him just because he does what? Act on a movie screen. Yup. Real unique ability that. Can't find many late middle aged men who can do what he does.
yup i did invoke hitler. But consider what you wrote about sheen and everyone and anyone even remotely connected to him.
Just plain ridiculous

Why can't you get that through your thick head?
He doesn't hate Richard Donner. He doesn't hate Goldie Hawn. He doesn't hate Peter David. He might hate YOU, because you're talking shit about him, but it's not because of your race.

Probably more than mel does. The ability to work alongside. People you hate is not any indication that you like them it us simply you tolerate them until you get what you want. Funny how none of meld views surfaced until he had enough money to day what he pleased

How can you say I hate Jews? That statement on its face is ridiculous. Sorry I don't put your or any particular race on a pedestal if that's what you're angling for.
Are there Jewish people I despise? Fuck yeah. I got a long ass list.
Are there Jewish people I admire? Yeah, and truth to tell that's a pretty long list too.
I'm ambivalent about you though. On the one hand, you're an annoying ass. But your schtick amuses me.

But obviously it's not to your satisfaction.
"Which is. When do you take a principled stand against someone or thing you find offensive?
At what point does entertainment value cease being sole criteria for your continued support?
i am taking my stand not because Mel pissed me off but because he hates my entire race and yours."
I suppose it comes down to if the person is acting upon those attitudes by hurting people. If Mel Gibson goes around beating up Jews, then we have a problem. On the other hand, if he went around beating up Jews then he'd be in jail, and when he got out, no one would hire him. So, as I said up thread, it becomes moot.
Let me ask you this, about your principles:
What if Mel Gibson had never said a harsh word about Jews, but instead had been railing against Palestinians, saying they all deserved nothing but contempt for how badly they're treating Israelis?
What if he'd been slamming Muslims?
What if he had said the Catholic church was rotten to the core, claiming it protected child molesters?
What if he'd made snide comments about the Chinese or Mexicans or Hispanics? What if he'd been recorded telling Polish jokes?
You keep asking me what he would have to do in order to rupture the division between the artist and the art. Let's turn that around: What's YOUR breaking point? Do you firmly believe that any hint of racism deserves condemnation and punitive measures? Or would you have tolerance and perhaps even be nodding in agreement with some of the sentiments?
If it's the former, then congrats: You have a principled stand. You also have a very difficult row to hoe, because you're going to have to be extremely vigilant in vetting every single major actor.
If it's the latter, then basically you're okay with trash talk as long as it's not aimed at you. That's not principles so much as it is personal pique. Which is, again, fine, so long as you acknowledge that's what you're doing. You don't REALLY care if someone's racist; just that they do or don't like Jews. Which means he pissed you off, which is the one thing you said he didn't do.
PAD

...is that, if I'm reading your comments correctly and can take as a given that you are sincere, you believe that Israel is an illegal state even though it's not, and firmly believe that the numbers of dead in the Holocaust are exaggerated.
If you continue to assert that you aren't anti-Semitic, then the inference to draw is that you seem to feel that it is possible to separate your attitudes about Israel and the Holocaust from feelings towards Jews as a race.
The problem is that most modern Jews, including myself, don't think that way. Israel is the Jewish homeland, legally established, founded in a section of the Middle East that nobody else wanted any part of until the Israelis suddenly started growing oranges the size of soccer balls. Then surrounding Arab countries started flooding Israel with excess population that they didn't want in order to get the Israelis out. That's where the Palestinians came from; it became Israel's problems because their neighbors made it their problem.
Do I subscribe to the notion that to criticize Israel is to be anti-Semitic? No. Israel is not a perfect country. They've made mistakes. You know what? So has the United States. We showed up out of nowhere, we treated the people who were already living here like shit, and when we got done doing that, we imported people here and treated them like shit. And then we told our mother country to go screw itself and engaged in an illegal revolt. Technically, America has less grounds for existing than Israel. We're 275 years old and we're still making mistakes. I'm not sure why Israel should, only a bit over a half century old, should be held to a higher standard than we hold ourselves.
The Holocaust really did happen. I know because my father fled it. He was five years old in 1935 and my grandfather was running a women's shoe store. The very first time that someone threw a brick through his window and shouted, "Dirty Jew!" my grandfather turned to my grandmother and said, "Pack up the shop and the child; we're leaving." All the neighbors told him he was crazy. All the neighbors died. You claim the six million number is exaggerated. It wasn't, but let's say for argument's sake that it was. If the Nazis had exterminated five million Jews, would that have been more acceptable? Four million? One million? How many people could be rounded up, shipped off to camps and be executed to be a travesty?
You might just think that Israel and the Holocaust are just aspects of political gamesmanship, totally separate from your feelings about Jews as a people. But these things are part of the Jewish soul, inextricably linked. When you cite the same rhetoric as die-hard anti-Semites would, then you don't get to act surprised if people say you're an anti-Semite.
Just something to think about.
PAD

Magnificent response to bsb. One of best i have seen directed at him. It will be to no avail but great effort anyway
now to main event. Peoples principles generally are tied to their self interest. I am even more opposed to polanski than i am to gibson. I used to read dave sim until i could no longer deal with the mysogny in know i screwed up spelling. I have no pique towards mel i just think it wrong to support someone who hates me and my race. Yup if i researched every entertainer im sure i would find many i would not support but that is a stupid game that will result in finding fault in just about everyone which is why i so strongly rejected your sheen analogy. But with mel i don't have to look hard i don't have to make any compromises. My self interests are front and center.

It's in your self interest. Check.
You said it's a stupid game to try and find fault in everybody. Check.
So all you're left with is your stance that you "just think it('s) wrong to support" someone who doesn't like Jews. Not bigots, per se. Just Jews. (I should point out conversely that it's therefore right to support someone who does like Jews, which means you should support the film's writers, the movie theater, and anyone else connected with the film, but that's neither here nor there.)
Ultimately, it means you're taking Gibson's attitude personally.
That's the difference between you and me.
So he doesn't like Jews. Okay. I wouldn't want one of my daughters to marry him.
But I'm not someone who turns away from anti-Semitism. I enjoy a good movie. If "The Beaver" is a good movie, which by all accounts it is, why should I allow an anti-Semite to deprive me of enjoying it? I really have no trouble disassociating the actor from his part. Maybe it's because I know so many freaking actors--all of them real people with their own quirks and limitations and, in some cases, shortcomings--that it's second nature to me.
You can't do that. Well...your loss. Gibson's a jerk, no question. The thing is, you have NO idea how many actors are jerks. I do. If I avoided them all, I'd never see anything. I will admit, though, that I do tend to take the opposite approach. If there are actors who I know for a fact are really great guys, I'll do my absolute damnedest to support anything they undertake. So I do subscribe to the opposite of your approach, for what that's worth.
Hatred isn't overcome by turning your back on it or trying to browbeat someone until they go away. Hatred is overcome, slowly but surely--as Thomas Jefferson said--by putting forward the common sense of the subject in terms so plain and firm as to command assent. That's what I endeavored to do with BSB, an action which you found laudable but, in your opinion, useless. I disagree. Do I seriously expect BSB to come back and say, "My God, you're right, I'm wrong!" Not really, no. I mean, it would be great if he did. But I never expect people with whom I disagree to say, "Okay, you've convinced me." Epiphanies don't typically happen in real life. Usually it happens slowly, over time.
I'm willing to wait.
PAD

you skipped my point about Polanski and Sim. i have no self interests where it concerns child rapists and misogynists (I looked up spelling), and yet I am more opposed to Polanski than Gibson or Sim. why is that? mel does not piss me off, i don't go around with a hate on for mel. my point is that some things people say and do cross the line that I have about behavior. if that coincides with my self interests - as in, if my principles which are formed from my self interest but not totally - see Polanski and Sim, then so be it.
see here is the thing about principles, even the most diehard racist like bsb probably has them, but that does not mean you or i would find them to our liking. yeah, i admit having principles and following them does not in itself make you a better person than others. i never said that. i dont think of myself as such, i know i aint. that is not the point though. it is my stand on my principles and self interest that i will not support an entertainer that i know- who on multiple occasions has expressed his hatred for my entire race. i dont hate mel, but i aint supporting him until i see tangible proof that he is sorry for such expressions of hatred.
i do not feel i am hurting myself in any way by not seeing his latest movie. there are thousands of movies i have not seen, this is just another one.

I think EVERYONE has self-interest when it comes to child rapists (or even regular rapists) and misogynists because we all know children and women, and the though of them being threatened or despised is repellent.
Polanski should be required to face the legal ramifications of his crimes. As for Dave, well...he has WAY more problems than misogyny. I've known Dave for thirty years and I was sure for the longest time that he was putting on an act. Kind of Andy Kaufman to the nth degree. I was at a party in Chicago once--hosted it actually--and by hour three Dave was staggering around as if he were totally drunk when I knew for a fact he'd been drinking only Coca Cola for the past two hours (I'd been concerned he was drinking too much early on and secretly had the bartender remove the rum from his rum and Cokes after the first forty five minutes).
I've since been convinced by people who know him closely that he's got some serious mental issues, and that saddens me more than you can believe, because he's a brilliant creator and much of the Indy market as it currently exists owes a great deal to him. You want to boil all that down to, "Well, he hates women so I won't support him." Okay. But that's the exact sort of simplistic view of the world that I think is limiting and unfortunate.
I think you're being disingenuous about your supposed dispassion toward Gibson. You say he can kiss your ass; you say that anyone who believes other than you do is a fool; and oh, by the way, it's a principled stand and not based in anger? C'mon. You assert that you wouldn't support him until he presents "tangible proof that he is sorry." Honestly? You expect me to buy that? Please. He could donate $1 million to the UJA and you'd say he's just doing it to make himself look good.
I just have trouble believing that someone who says, on the one hand, "I think people can change" and on the other hand says BSB "will never change" is being wholly honest with me, or even himself. I think you're kidding yourself if you're claiming that you're not pissed off. You're certainly not convincing me. Which, of course, you don't have to do. I find it interesting, though, that on the one hand you claim to be willing to forgive Gibson, but on the other hand you swear that BSB is hopeless. I think the latter attitude is a far more honest depiction of your mindset, which is why your claims of being willing to accept contrition from Gibson ring a bit hollow to me.
As for BSB, this is my first actual encounter with him. Granted, you seem to have far more experience with him, but I don't know the level of the discourse. You yourself said my response to him was one of the best you've seen. Maybe it'll make a difference. Maybe it won't.
One other observation: By your own standards, you believe anyone who disagrees with you on this point is a fool. You said that several times. To paraphrase Obi-Wan, who is the greater fool? The fool, or the fool who argues with him?
PAD

sim is a tragic figure. i do know about his suspected mental illness - although I did not at the time i was reading the issues that sparked my decision to stop reading the series. i came to the series late through friends who swore it was the best comic ever created. reading some of his earlier work, i agree that the man is near genius level as a artist/writer/creator and has had a great impact on comics in general.
i think we both have engaged in some hyperbole during this exchange. yeah, the mel can kiss my ass does sound like i am mad at him. i will say that was for effect more than anger though.
people can change - i am sure of it. maybe even bsb. i just doubt it in his case but i have been wrong before. he got involved in a long exchange with a tb'er named talan dagwood, i was about to jump in, but i just watched fascinated. bsb was spewing his normal hatred and posting links and such - i actually forget what it was that time but it was definitely anti-Semitic. talan just calmly but forcefully exposed every lie bsb presented, just demolished bsb on every point. even bsb admitted defeat, but you know what? it did not matter cause he is still at it again posting links from self hating Jews that the extremists use for cover when they want to engage in some anti-Semitic rantings.
im not being disingenuous. i dont hate mel. i dont know mel . i just think it is foolish to support someone - where my livelihood is not in the least bit impacted, who hates me and my entire race for no just cause.
he is an entertainer, he is not going to impact my life other than the two hours of screen time it takes to watch his latest work. i am not missing out by not watching him. i would feel foolish supporting him though. as for a change i could believe in - yeah. well i need to see it before i know if i accept it or not. i have accepted apologies in the past ya know?

just read the comments on this site to see how many do not share any normal self interest when it comes to protecting women and children and being outraged at those who would harm either
it aint so cut and dried

Well, we sure disagree on many things. The same old lies about Israel being a land without a people for a people without a land is a major chasm between our lines of thinking. It's a racist and revisionist take on the displacement of the native inhabitants, a justification (if you can even call it that) for the democide of the Palestinians. I was hoping you were above that, and I'm sorry I was wrong. But anyhoo.
I don't assert that I'm not 'anti-semitic'. I simply don't subscribe to that term being applicable to me. If some of my beliefs about Israel are similar to those held by real racists, Neo-Nazis and the like who actively and purposefully seek to harm others, then that's just an unfortunate (but false) association. I have beliefs that Jews of a Zionist bent find distasteful to their thinking, but that doesn't make me anything but a guy with a different opinion.
It's a distraction and a deflection to compare Israel to America. What was then is done. What is now, and continues to pose problems for the world in an ongoing basis, must be addressed.
The Holocaust really did happen. On that we agree. But I believe the figure of 6 million Jews dead is grossly exaggerated in order to conjure up a tragedy of a proportion great enough to try to justify another tragedy perpetrated on the Palestinians. Do you not see that equally a travesty? One million or six, I don't condone what the Nazis did to Jews, gypsies, Russians, or myriad other people. But I also don't condone the exploitation of one genocide to commit another. Your family suffered a horrific fate. Is that justification to put another family through the same?
I understand your mindset - that (Right-wing) Zionism and Judaism are part and parcel of each other - was developed from a certain perspective and through your own education. But please don't presume that other Jews share your views, or that goys should blindly subscribe to them.
I for one refuse to believe that deception, indiscriminate murder, torture and democide are inextricably linked to the Jewish soul. I think before you accuse anyone of being racist/anti-semitic you need to look at your own values and the actions you support first, and see if you have the moral ground to call anyone else out.

My point also is this. I'm not saying it's you but just throwing it out there. If identifying anti-semites is important, because we definitely do not want another Holocaust, we should be very careful who we call anti-semitic. Lobbing that term on someone just because they're critical of, say, Israel, or because they hold a contrary opinion, just dilutes the meaning of the term.
I hope wanker face understands that. Also that dipshit DocPazuzu. Don't think I forgot about you, douchebag.

...is, as far as I'm concerned, your genuine feelings. You were angry. You were pissed off. And what you're doing now comes across as revisionist history (a concept that, since you deal with BSB, you should be familiar with). You're reacting with your gut. He pissed you off and now you want to get back at him until he performs some manner of hypothetical apology which, I believe, could never be done to your satisfaction anyway.
I don't understand this compulsion of yours to try and turn a gut reaction into a nuanced philosophy. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I can't stand this guy. Screw him." I would really respect that honesty far more than this whole, "I'm not pissed off with him, this is just about principles" stuff.
"i am not missing out by not watching him."
And you'd know that how?
PAD

If you're such a noble friend of Jews and foe of Zionists, why is it as soon as a neo-Nazi or Holocaust denier shows up on these boards you're the first one to buddy up with them? Why is it you are on friendly terms with someone like shogunshin, who refuses to admit that Hitler had death camps for Jews and claims that Anne Frank's diary is a forgery? Why was one of your most ardent allies homewrecker, a talkbacker who believes that AICN is run by the Mossad and that I, its master agent, gets paid in Muslim and Christian children's blood?
<p>
As long as president Ahmadinejad was hosting Holocaust revisionist conferences in Iran, he could do no wrong in your eyes. You defended him at every turn and even suggested Iran and America form an alliance. Once the riots happened, though, you dropped him like a hot potato. And how did you motivate this? By claiming you had discovered that he was a Jew. When you were known as "brokebackcowboy" you would revert to calling anyone who disagreed with you a "Jew" and talked about how much you'd like to "fuck your Jewish sisters up the ass."
<p>
The reason you can't name any of your scholars is because there is not one of them -- not a single one -- who can't be shown to have ties to extremist groups or far-right fascist parties. Show me one single serious scholar or historian who believes the numbers of Holocaust dead were exaggerated by the millions yet has no known ties to any extremist groups. Your smoke and mirrors act is meant to disguise the fact that your "beliefs" in this matter are politically motivated and prejudiced.
<p>
At every turn you have villified Jews and sought some sort of suit-and-tie respectability while doing so, spouting utter bullshit about how you don't hate Jews, neglecting to mention the fact that you were once banned here for launching a particularly venomous anti-Semitic tirade.
<p>
You're a cheap, seedy, bigoted piece of crypto-fascist shit. I never bought the new David Duked version of you and was particularly repulsed by your numerous attempts to hump my leg in talkback under your new name until you were outed. I thoroughly despise you and always have. As long as I'm on these boards, you will NEVER escape your past. You can count on it.

"It's a racist and revisionist take on the displacement of the native inhabitants, a justification (if you can even call it that) for the democide of the Palestinians."
Actually, no. It's family history. I don't get my information from slanted websites or books written by people with axes to grind. My parents were there while it was happening. My mother is a sabra, born in Palestine and growing up there when it became Israel. My father, once having fled Berlin, grew up in Israel. It's not revisionist history if you were there when it all happened, and my parents had plenty of stories of what life was like growing up in areas that were fairly desolate and then, slowly but surely, Arabs came flooding in from everywhere. Revisionist history is what you're dishing out. The question is: Did you allow your views to be informed by it? Or did you already have your views in place and seek out confirmation in order to bolster them? Because if it's the latter, I'm sure there are also plenty of places on the net that will provide you evidence that Elvis is still alive, George Bush blew up the Twin Towers, and UFOs are giving rectal probes to random farmers.
"It's a distraction and a deflection to compare Israel to America. What was then is done. What is now, and continues to pose problems for the world in an ongoing basis, must be addressed."
Really. So America gets a pass on barbaric acts because it was a long time ago? I think there are quite a few people who are advocates of reparations for black Americans who would disagree with that philosophy. And I venture to say there are plenty of native Americans still getting the shaft to this day who might also look to have a few words with you.
What you're suggesting, though, is that once a certain amount of time passes, a country's actions qualify as "what's done is done." I'm wondering what that time limit would be. Israel was founded over sixty years ago. That's not far enough back to qualify as "what's done is done?" Slavery was as recently as just over a century ago. Japanese internment camps were seventy years ago. But that's okay because it was "done then." So if the time limit you've set for accepting what's done is done is seventy years, then by that logic, Israel only has another ten years to go before you forfeit the right to complain about its founding. If that's not the case, then you're saying that Israel has no statute of limitations, real, perceived or otherwise.
"But I believe the figure of 6 million Jews dead is grossly exaggerated in order to conjure up a tragedy of a proportion great enough to try to justify another tragedy perpetrated on the Palestinians. Do you not see that equally a travesty?"
I think it's a travesty that you believe it. It's also a fairly tortured train of logic.
First of all, do you seriously believe that if the number thrown about had been a "mere" one million Jews, that would have been insufficient to make the case for a Jewish homeland?
Second, Jews weren't looking for a reason to kill Palestinians. They were just looking for somewhere they could live where people wouldn't be trying to kill them. Tragically, that hasn't happened yet.
"But please don't presume that other Jews share your views, or that goys should blindly subscribe to them."
Old joke: A Jew traveling on foot through Eastern Europe comes to a small town just as Sabbath is approaching. He asks of the towns people if there happen to be any other Jews in town, and they say, "There's only one Jew in the town, old Moishe." They give the travelers directions and in short order he finds Moishe, who welcomes him to spend the sabbath with him. The traveler says, "It's a shame there's no synagogue." Moishe tells him to follow him out the back and leads him to two small buildings, both synagogues. "I built them both myself," he says quite proudly. He points to the one on the left and says, "That is where i spend every Sabbath." The traveler says in confusion, "What's the other synagogue for?" And Moishe spits and says angrily, "That one! That one I wouldn't set foot in if you paid me!"
The point of the joke is: Other Jews don't share views? Hardly news. Disagreeing and arguing is entrenched in Jewish thinking. Unlike some other faiths that discourage free thinking and insist on blind acceptance of dogma, Judaism believes it's incumbent to take nothing for granted. For instance, there are plenty of Israelis who would firmly believe that I'm not a Jew because I'm part of a Reform temple and they don't accept that as "real" Judaism. So if your defense is, "Other Jews don't agree with you," that's meaningless. Jews disagree? Wow. Must be a day ending in the letter "y."
Although we can pretty much agree that the plural of "goy" is "goyim." You had the plural correct earlier and now when you get a chance to use it, you drop the ball again.
"I for one refuse to believe that deception, indiscriminate murder, torture and democide are inextricably linked to the Jewish soul."
I likewise don't believe that. They are, however, all things that the United States has done and continue to do. Ask the Native Americans who were lied to about treaties and whose race teetered on extinction. Ask the black slaves or, if you prefer more recent vintage, the many prisoners taken during recent wars. So what does that say about the American soul? Oh, but that's okay, because Abu Ghraib was "then." So again: Why do you hold Israel to a different standard than the USA? It's not a deflection. It's a question. A deflection is saying, "That was then."
I don't expect people to blindly subscribe. I am instead supplying information and informed opinion. What you choose to do with that information--ignore it or consider it--is entirely up to you.
"Lobbing that term on someone just because they're critical of, say, Israel, or because they hold a contrary opinion, just dilutes the meaning of the term."
I agree. But, as I said, when you repeatedly espouse the philosophies that the most virulent anti-Semites bandy about, then you don't get to be shocked--SHOCKED!--when someone believes you share that viewpoint. Trying to discuss with academic detachment the number of dead in the Holocaust or the legitimacy of Israel as it fights for survival, and trying to claim that it's mere interest in historical accuracy rather than hatred, would be slightly more convincing if you conducted yourself in accordance with that. But when you spew insults like "wanker" "dipshit" and "fuckface" you come across like someone for whom hatred is a natural state of mind. So you don't exactly help your credibility.
And is democide your vocabulary word for today? I rarely see people use it once, much less twice in the same day.
Oh, and I know nothing about a Moon Knight movie. Sorry.
PAD

Your family record is at odds with those of the Palestinians who were displaced. Again, you infer that Palestine was a vast, empty expanse that was just awaiting the return of the Israelites. False. Palestinians were displaced, forced out. Admit that much, and maybe Israel can make peace with them finally. Keep denying them *their* history, *their* identity and *their* plight ... and you expect understanding for yours? Really?
America again. Why not make analogies to China, Russia, England, Portugal, Spain and any of the hundreds of countries who have at one time colonized another? Give it a rest. Either we're talking about Israel or we're not. Doesn't make a difference to me.
It's sad you can't objectively view the Palestinians as victims of Zionist aggression and colonization. It amazes me that someone who invokes the Holocaust through the eyes of its victims cannot see what he's doing to the Palestinians in the same light. Bottom line is, if it weren't for the Holocaust there would be no Israel. One tragedy begat another. At least Germany paid for the deeds of the Nazis. Israel and its supporters, like you, won't even acknowledge what you're inflicting on the Palestinians. It's high comedy is what it is.
I don't get that joke. Whoosh.
You're the one who inextricably linked Israel, the Holocaust and "the Jewish soul". By that you are the one inferring one monolithic Jewish mindset when it comes to matters of Israel and the Holocaust. In effect you're using every Jew, everywhere, as some sort of human shield against criticism against Zionist policies and actions.
I'm here not only to tell you that is wrong, as many Jews do not share the same support you have for Israel but that you are harming those Jews. When Israel brings massacre upon the refugee camps, do you really want a Jew living in, say, Iowa, to be hated for it? I mean, I know the ADL wants that, but do you?
Glad you don't expect people to blindly subscribe. I've taken in your information and opinion and I disagree. And vice versa, I assume. And that's okay. We grow a little more from it.
Again. I'm not shocked, or SHOCKED!, when someone believes I share exact beliefs with actual racists. That's their faulty thinking, not mine. I don't feel inclined to correct them. I just simply go on with my opinion as they go on with theirs. Let the discourse sort itself out.
Democide as word of the day? Funny, but no. It's long been the best, most accurate description of what the Palestinians have suffered under Israeli occupation. Fight for survival applies to more than Israel.
As for using "wanker", "dipshit", "fuckface" ... this is AICN banter with Kobe. Things do tend to get rowdy around here. It ain't no NYT message board you know.
Peace.

the thing i find fascinating is your disbelief or lack of belief in taking a principled stand -on seemingly anything. or perhaps it is just your disbelief that I could take such a stand. i have presented two disparate examples of my taking such a stance in the past - polanski and sim. you countered that everyone feels a self interest where children and women are concerned, and i replied that is not so, simply scroll up to see the attitudes that some have concerning polanski and child rapists. the fact that both child rapists and misogynists find many people willing to defend and support them puts lie to your assertion that everyone feels a sense of outrage towards those who would abuse them or take a principled stance against them.
sim - i infer, is a friend of yours, or at least more than just a passing acquaintance. therefore your acceptance of his misogyny - whether precipitated by an underlying mental illness or no , is at least understandable. as for polanski, which to your credit you state he should face justice, you never did say whether or not you still see his pictures. given your past statements of support to the innocent film crew and sundry, i am going to go out on a limb and say that you still do.
this brings us to the crux of my confusion regarding your disbelief about a principled stance vs simple pique- as you would ascribe to me.
I know nothing about you other than you have written or still write comic books -some of which I have read quite a while ago, and i can honestly say I quite enjoyed them. but i have not wiki'ed you so i do not know what you are currently doing.
you mentioned that you know several actors. could it be that you have aspirations of a Hollywood career, or in fact already have such,? if which is the case I apologize for not knowing. regardless, actors are known to be more liberal - for the most part, than most folks. you being a writer, it would only make sense that you would pursue or be pursued by hollywood with comic books being as hot a property as they are today.
so maybe, just maybe your unwillingness to ascribe my principled stance against supporting any mel gibson movies and my repeated assertion that it has nothing to do with pique is more a function of YOUR self interest coming into play.
that is, you either being a hollywood player or wanting to be such, are unwilling to take or support a stance such as boycott,self imposed or otherwise, against mel gibson, or any hollywood type because it conflicts with the known liberal tendencies of hollywood.
when people like whoopi goldberg can say 'it wasn't rape rape' or titans like scorsese can come out and support polanski, it becomes very clear that precious few out there or those who desire to be out there, would publicly take a stance to stop supporting gibson.
or, maybe it is simply that you have become blinded by your acquaintances and associations? hang with hollywood, become hollywood

"Your family record is at odds with those of the Palestinians who were displaced."
It's at odds with people who have denied that Jews have a right to a homeland and were used as pawns by large Arab countries to try and force them out. Wow. What are the odds?
"America again. Why not make analogies to China, Russia, England, Portugal, Spain and any of the hundreds of countries who have at one time colonized another?"
Indeed, why not? They all have blood on their hands for various reasons. Or are you giving them a pass as well?
"Give it a rest. Either we're talking about Israel or we're not."
Actually, YOU were talking about deception, torture, etc. All I did was point out that you seem to be singling out Israel. Do you have as much antipathy for every country that allegedly commits these crimes? Or just Israel? If it's every country, at least you're consistent. But the way that you're dodging the point indicates that, no, you've singled out Israel. Which leads one to wonder why. You being an anti-Semite would seem to be the obvious reason. I've yet to see a better reason.
"Israel and its supporters, like you, won't even acknowledge what you're inflicting on the Palestinians."
Just as its detractors refuse to acknowledge what the Palestinians have inflicted on themselves. They could have had their own country years ago. But their leaders walked away from the deal because it's not about having their own country. They just want to drive out the Israelis. It's been said before, but it's true: If the Palestinians put down their weapons, there would be no more fighting. If the Israelis put down their weapons, there would be no more Israel.
Terrorists attacked this country and we responded by creating the Patriot Act, suspending rights, and opening up our very own torture camp. Arabs have been attacking Israel prospect of attacks. If Israel has a siege mentality, well...it's unfortunate, but it's not surprising.
"When Israel brings massacre upon the refugee camps, do you really want a Jew living in, say, Iowa, to be hated for it?"
As much as I appreciate your compassion for an unnamed Jew in Iowa (more compassion than you seem to display for every Jew living in Israel) I have to point out that people have been manufacturing reasons to hate Jews for thousands of years before Israel was established. If someone is going to hate a Jew in Iowa, they won't need Israel as an excuse. For that matter, the notion that Israel WOULD be an excuse is a dubious one. "Y'know, Goldfarb, I used to like you, but then I read about what's happening in Israel and now I hate your living guts."
"By that you are the one inferring one monolithic Jewish mindset when it comes to matters of Israel and the Holocaust."
Okay, well, first thing's first. I didn't infer it. You inferred it. The speaker implies; the listener infers. I did not mean to imply that I was speaking for the entirety of Judaism. I was referring to why people HERE are reacting to you in the way they are. Obviously you were confused. My apologies; I thought what I was saying was self-evident. Apparently not. I'm glad I was able to clarify that for you.
"I don't feel inclined to correct them."
Really? They said you're anti-Semitic. You said you're not. If you weren't inclined to correct them, then you would have either said nothing or perhaps, "Whatever."
"As for using "wanker", "dipshit", "fuckface" ... this is AICN banter with Kobe."
Well, first of all, you're using it with more than just Kobe. And second...banter? I don't think that word means what you think it means. You can add it to the list with "infer."
Now THAT'S banter.
PAD

The sentence which reads "Arabs have been attacking Israel prospect of attacks" was a mash-up of "Arabs have been attacking Israel for years" and "Israel lives constantly under the prospect of attacks." I really should write stuff off line and just cut and paste.
PAD

I didn't say you couldn't take a principled stand. I just don't think this is it. I think, based on your own words (which you now dismiss as hyperbole) that you're acting out of...
Oh, screw it.
Fine, you're taking a principled stand. Whatever.
PAD

not dismissing my words as hyperbole, merely explaining why i said such in the first place - because afterall, this is AICN. and yes even you have engaged in such, or should we accept as literal truth your statement about sheen and the tangential fallout that such would necessitate if you in fact meant every word you said?
oh screw it, you did
at least you did not fall for bsb trying to suck your ass with the moon knight comments while stabbing you in the back with his hatred.
i cant be upset today though cause it is march madness baby

"It's at odds with people who have denied that Jews have a right to a homeland and were used as pawns by large Arab countries to try and force them out. Wow. What are the odds?"
Yet again, denying Palestinian history and identity - the goal being, of course, to deny the right to their original homeland. You have been very thoroughly indoctrinated, that's for sure.
Why does it seem like I'm "singling out" Israel and not talking about other countries? Because ... we're in a Mel Gibson talkback. Were we in a Red Dawn talkback, we'd be discussing North Korea. Does that make any sense, or do you just want to play the anti-semite card ad nauseum?
"Just as its detractors refuse to acknowledge what the Palestinians have inflicted on themselves."
That's a take I've heard many times before. I think it's rather disgusting to blame the victim for their own victimhood. You (well, not you personally) do everything in the book to break a people's will, and failing that, you claim they could have had the crumbs you offered had they succumbed to your demands.
"If Israel has a siege mentality, well...it's unfortunate, but it's not surprising."
Yet you fail to see the mentality of a displaced and subjugated people whose fight to survive and persevere will drive them to desperate acts as well. When Hamas fires rockets, is it also "unfortunate, but not surprising"? Or do you apply a different standard to the Palestinians than to yourself? I'm pretty sure I know the answer but let's hear it from the horse's mouth.
I wouldn't mention compassion if I were you. You seem to expect, and solicit, a lot of it for your people, while at the same time being very cavalier about the Palestinians. Why is that? It's a sincere question.
You can skip the grammar and etiquette lessons, Peter. All it accomplishes is revealing your frustration.

the mel can kiss my ass or whatever i said, as hyperbole - and only that, which is really is aicn tradition, and like i said you have engaged in such - albeit without the profanity unless we are to assume every word you wrote is literal

"You have been very thoroughly indoctrinated, that's for sure."
If by "indoctrinated" you mean I learned the history personally from people who were there, then yeah, I guess. But I don't think that someone who spouts all the standard rote comments of anti-Semitic thinking really gets to accuse others of being indoctrinated.
"Why does it seem like I'm "singling out" Israel and not talking about other countries? Because ... we're in a Mel Gibson talkback."
Thread drift happens. You're the one who brought up supposed examples of why Israel should be reviled. My point is simple: All countries have done things in order to survive and grow and those things aren't always pretty. Condemn one for certain actions and you're ethically compelled to condemn them all. To me it's a reasonable question: Do you hate the United States (or Spain or China) for having committed all the actions that you lambaste Israel for and do you feel that they should be condemned by the international community? You've dodged this question three times now, and frankly I think that pretty much provides the answer.
"Just as its detractors refuse to acknowledge what the Palestinians have inflicted on themselves."
"That's a take I've heard many times before."
Because it's true.
"I think it's rather disgusting to blame the victim for their own victimhood."
So do I. I blame the Arab countries that shoved them into this situation. Once they were there, though, they proceeded to try and kill the settlers. And they continued to try and kill them. And then when that didn't work, the larger countries tried to kill them. And after five decades of trying to kill the Israelis, they were then offered a great peace deal, and that didn't work. So yeah, there's some culpability there.
"Yet you fail to see the mentality of a displaced and subjugated people whose fight to survive and persevere will drive them to desperate acts as well."
Curiously, it doesn't drive them to such desperate acts as, say, making a real peace with Israel. Bombings, rockets, missiles, teaching children to kill Israelis, that they'll do. Accept peace offers, no. Why? Because they're not trying to survive; they're trying to push the Israelis into the sea.
"I wouldn't mention compassion if I were you. You seem to expect, and solicit, a lot of it for your people, while at the same time being very cavalier about the Palestinians. Why is that? It's a sincere question."
Because my people don't have a government that has, as the centerpiece of its policies, a resolve to kill all the Palestinians. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have a government that has as the centerpiece of its policies to kill all the Israelis.
"You can skip the grammar and etiquette lessons, Peter. All it accomplishes is revealing your frustration."
No, it reveals that when I use words, I know what they mean. You previously thanked me when I corrected your Yiddish. I thought you were genuinely interested in improving your word use. Was that a lie? Bantering? Or did I not infer your meaning properly?
PAD

"If by "indoctrinated" you mean I learned the history personally from people who were there, then yeah, I guess."
Well, at the very least you were given a point of view. More than likely you were taught fairy tales. Did they make you wear headphones to hear the repeated phrase "Land without a people for a people without a land"?
"My point is simple: All countries have done things in order to survive and grow and those things aren't always pretty."
Your point is to deflect. Stay on topic. Mommy mommy, but he did it first is not a smart argument.
"Curiously, it doesn't drive them to such desperate acts as, say, making a real peace with Israel. Bombings, rockets, missiles, teaching children to kill Israelis, that they'll do."
How successful were the Jews in making peace with the Nazis?
"Because my people don't have a government that has, as the centerpiece of its policies, a resolve to kill all the Palestinians. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have a government that has as the centerpiece of its policies to kill all the Israelis."
The centerpiece of Israel's policies is to establish a Jewish state, which is to say, going beyond the apartheid state it is now. To drive out all Arabs. I suppose you think Israel is the shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East, too?
"No, it reveals that when I use words, I know what they mean."
That's fairly meaningless when you use words in the service of democide and propaganda.

"Well, at the very least you were given a point of view. More than likely you were taught fairy tales. Did they make you wear headphones to hear the repeated phrase "Land without a people for a people without a land"?"
No. Just read books detailing the two state solution that was proposed in 1947 that Israel immediately accepted unconditionally and the Arabs rejected. Or about the war that was launched against Israel in 1948 within practically minutes of their becoming a state.
"Your point is to deflect. Stay on topic. Mommy mommy, but he did it first is not a smart argument."
Wow. You absolutely cannot admit that you single out Israel for attack. But of course you can't admit that, because the only real reason for such behavior is that you're anti-Semitic, which you cannot admit to being.
"How successful were the Jews in making peace with the Nazis?"
Not at all. Which is why they wanted a homeland where people wouldn't try to kill them.
"The centerpiece of Israel's policies is to establish a Jewish state, which is to say, going beyond the apartheid state it is now."
Uhm...no. The state was already established in 1948. Now they're just trying to survive.
"To drive out all Arabs."
Uhm...no. They just want the Arabs to stop killing them. The same Arabs who repeatedly have refused offers of their own country.
"I suppose you think Israel is the shining beacon of democracy in the Middle East, too?"
Egypt is putting in a strong bid as well.
"That's fairly meaningless when you use words in the service of democide and propaganda."
No, I use words in the service of expressing myself clearly.
PAD

"No. Just read books detailing the two state solution that was proposed in 1947 that Israel immediately accepted unconditionally and the Arabs rejected."
When you sell a novel, do you sign a contract with terms that are unfavorable and unacceptable to you? Didn't think so.
"Wow. You absolutely cannot admit that you single out Israel for attack. But of course you can't admit that, because the only real reason for such behavior is that you're anti-Semitic, which you cannot admit to being."
Yeah. It really does suck when the other side doesn't play by your rules. Throws you off your game completely. I'll bet those debates you have with other Jews invariably end up with you calling them self-loathers. Go ahead. Be predictable.
"Not at all. Which is why they wanted a homeland where people wouldn't try to kill them."
So they ran from the Nazis, only to act like them.
"Uhm...no. The state was already established in 1948. Now they're just trying to survive." "To drive out all Arabs."
Clearly you haven't talked to Arab Israelis in recent years. See how great life is for them. Shades of South Africa ... or worse.
"No, I use words in the service of expressing myself clearly."
If by expressing yourself you mean regurgitating lies, then okay.

Of course I'm on the sidelines. Why would I do anything to disrupt the beauty of watching Peter David slowly and inexorably demolish every single one of your points? I'm enjoying your humiliating demise too much for that.
<p>
However, if you ever find your minuscule balls again (hint: look in David Irving's mouth) and decide you want to actually, you know, take me up on one of my challenges (the derogatory nature of "Pallies", your fascist scholars, etc.) please feel free to put your head on the chopping block.

That's what you see.
What everybody else sees is a guy who thought he could finesse me into adopting his propaganda. Who arrogantly believed he could 'change' me.
But every single tactic in the game book failed, and finesse turned to a breakdown in composure. Ultimately his racism - cruel, unapologetic, hateful, hypocritical and just a little devious - was revealed.
Suck on that, cheerleader boy.

While far from from ideal, how can you say that the situation of Israeli Arabs is worse than South Africa?
http://realjerusalemstreets.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/israeli-apartheid/
How does Israel have the goal to drive out all Arabs? Has the Arab population of Israel and the territories risen or fallen since 1967? What are the infant mortality statistics and life expectancy compared to before? Compared to Arab countries?
If Israel were to go back to pre-1967 borders (including Jerusalem) and Hamas and others were to attack from Palestinian territory, what would do suggest Israel do?
Any comments about Syria, Iran and Hezbollah trying to destabilize any potential peace?
Does "propaganda" only eminate from pro-Israel sources, or perhaps from some of the sources you rely on as well?

"When you sell a novel, do you sign a contract with terms that are unfavorable and unacceptable to you? Didn't think so."
Well, I appreciate you asking and answering your own question. It could save me some time. Fortunately I have a bit to spare, so I'll give it an actual answer.
Unfavorable? Yes. That's the nature of compromise. You don't get everything you want, but you get some stuff. There's stuff in contracts that favor me; there's stuff in contracts that favor the publisher. That's the way negotiations go. The ideal for the Zionists in 1947 would have been, "You get everything and everyone else has to go away." Instead they were willing to accept, without negotiation at all, a two-country deal. No one gets displaced. No one goes anywhere. It just formalized the situation that already existed. It was, "This is officially where the Israelis will live. This is where the Palestinians will live."
The Arabs said no. Flat out. Unacceptable.
Why was it unacceptable? Because it didn't require the Jews to leave.
And the result was the establishment of an Israeli state, because the Israelis said yes, and no Palestinian state, because the Arabs said no.
Whereupon the Arabs tried to kill the Israelis.
There's unfavorable. There's unacceptable. And then there's just pure fury that you don't get everything you want that translates into hatred, violence, and attempted genocide.
And I feel sympathy for the victims of that hatred, violence and attempted genocide, and you feel sorry for the aggressors who brought it on themselves.
I'm really okay with my priorities.
"Yeah. It really does suck when the other side doesn't play by your rules. Throws you off your game completely."
At least I've got game. As for you, you just dodged the question a fifth time. Good news: If you dodge it a sixth time, you get a free dodge.
"So they ran from the Nazis, only to act like them."
Godwin's Law. You lose.
"Clearly you haven't talked to Arab Israelis in recent years. See how great life is for them. Shades of South Africa ... or worse."
Clearly I've missed all the news coverage during which South African blacks were lobbing missiles at white South Africans or forming a government dedicated to destroying all the white people.
"If by expressing yourself you mean regurgitating lies, then okay."
The short answer is: Look who's talking. The longer answer is that, far from regurgitating, I'm telling you things that came right from the source. People who were there, at the time, watching it all go down, having to dive under tables at home when Arab rockets came hurtling into their neighborhoods, blowing up buildings, killing nearby families. Rockets that never would have flown, deaths that never would have occurred, if their attackers had only been willing to accept one simple concept: Live and let live.
And they said no. They said, We want to kill you because you are Jews. It doesn't matter if you're living in the desolate Negev. We want you dead.
And the Jews wouldn't die.
And here's a hint, BSB: If your gut reaction to that statement was, "Yeah, like cockroaches," then chances are you're an anti-Semite.
PAD

I think it is indeed possible for you to change. Change is always possible. Political writer David Brock was a hard line right wing conservative; he made you look like Desmond Tutu. Eventually, though, he decided that his positions were all wrong and even wrote a book about it, "Blinded by the Right."
Meanwhile there was Norma McCorvey, better known by her fake name of "Jane Roe," the subject of "Roe v. Wade." The landmark subject of a woman's right to choose has since repudiated the case that she triggered and is now a staunch ally of those who oppose keeping abortion legal.
So yes, as long as you're sucking oxygen, it's possible to change. Did I expect you to do so during this conversation? No, of course not. As I said, change doesn't happen overnight. I expected you to do exactly what you did: Double down on the hatred, because at the moment, that's all you know. On the other hand, as near as I can tell, no one has debated this subject with you without descending into name calling (if someone has, then I apologize to them. I'm somewhat new to this particular feud that seems to have been going on for a while.) So perhaps that will make a difference.
In any event: No one sees the light immediately, and it's even harder when they're blinded by hatred. But perhaps, eventually, you'll learn to think for yourself rather than accept the lies that have been poured into you.
PAD

"What everybody else sees is a guy who thought he could finesse me into adopting his propaganda. Who arrogantly believed he could 'change' me."
You think it's arrogance to believe that people can set aside hatred? Okay, well...we can file that away with the rest of the misplaced beliefs you hold about such subjects as, oh, Israel and Jews. And as I said repeatedly, I never for a moment thought you would change now. But perhaps later, when you're not in a position of having to defend your misplaced beliefs and have time to think about it. Presuming, of course, that you want to think.
The unexamined life is not worth living.
PAD

it made no difference. this is not the forum for change of attitude, it is more of a pressure release for anonymous expression of attitudes that most in the real world would find abhorrent.
i guarantee you bsb does not say anything of the sort at his day job while mopping floors - or at least not out loud.

For every single person who responds on a thread, there are plenty who are simply reading, observing and processing. I've met countless people at conventions who tell me how much they enjoy reading my site, but admit they've never contributed.
Where there's one anti-Semite spouting off on this thread, there may well be ten, or twenty, or a hundred who are simply reading the exchanges.
It is the natural tendency of someone, when their beliefs are challenged, to become even more entrenched during the challenging. Nothing, not indisputable events from history, not the repeated demolishing of their logic, will budge them. But people watching silently...they're able to look at the exchange with a bit more dispassion. They have the ability to say to themselves, "Wow...I never thought of it that way. Hmmm."
And maybe I change a mind or two. It happens. It's happened before. I know because they've emailed me and told me so.
Maybe it'll happen here.
PAD

"it made no difference. this is not the forum for change of attitude, it is more of a pressure release for anonymous expression of attitudes that most in the real world would find abhorrent."
I believe a forum, like the world, is what you make it to be. On my site, most people use their real names and have spirited exchanges that, more often than not, don't descend into name-calling. Sometimes it gets nasty, yes. But it's more the exception than here where it seems the rule.
And as I said, you never really know whose attitudes you may be changing.
PAD

you are probably correct that those watching are more prone to attitude change than the ones debating. i recall a few tb'ers on here using that that exact reason for continuing to argue with some of the more repellent posters here. what is your website name?

As for your style being confrontational...so? It's a website, not a sewing circle.
The thing is, there's different types of confrontation. There are some people who come in with strong opinions and they will find people who are willing to give as good as they get. If that's what you're seeking, then you'll fit right in.
On the other hand, if you come in belligerent and name calling, people will assume you're just there to start trouble rather than actually discuss things and most of them will ignore you.
I'll tell you this: I don't know the historical reason why you sign your name the way you do. But if you come in signing yourself with Hey Kobe, tell me how my ass tastes, no one's going to take you seriously. It's your choice, but I'm just letting you know.
PAD

Well, I give you props for believing that anyone - ANYONE! - can change. You get an A+ for effort (that's on a curve, considering Pazuzu is the other guy in the class).
MY hope is that you recognize that potential for change ... in yourself. You can start by admitting your own racism.
You see, your arrogance is in thinking that only the other party is in need of change, that your belief system is beyond reproach.
You are not infallible, Mr. David. You are as deeply flawed as you think I am. You have done a lot of doubling down yourself, if you're honest enough to recognize it. It's pretty obvious there in black and white, to me and all the lurkers reading this exchange.
Your appeal to me applies moreso to yourself (and, sadly, to general Israeli attitudes). Every word of it. It's funny because the passion with which you seek to reach me, I feel more for you. I could very easily copy and paste your post and direct it back at you.
To paraphrase Peter David, you don't get to lecture me about racism when you are racist yourself.
The moment you bring honesty to the table (say, something along the lines of "Israel is wrong and doing great harm") rather than false justification ("The Palestinians bring it upon themselves"), THEN you have a chance to convince me that you are worth conversing with. Otherwise, you are being hypocritical and holding a double standard - and I don't have as much of an interest in spending time changing you as you would like to change me.
I hope that helps you to understand me, and yourself, a little more. Perhaps in time we can meet on common ground.
Anyway, I have a half day today and the floors don't mop themselves. Have a nice weekend.

i can't stand kobe for a number of reasons, some principled (the rape case) others purely from a fan standpoint - he has beaten my team more times than we have beaten his. i am not a shaq supporter per se unless he is beating on kobe. if i joined a new site, i would probably dump the handle, but i will say that people who judge a book by its cover are simply asking for trouble

BSB: "The moment you bring honesty to the table (say, something along the lines of "Israel is wrong and doing great harm") rather than false justification ("The Palestinians bring it upon themselves"), THEN you have a chance to convince me that you are worth conversing with."
I have said repeatedly that I don't think Israel is perfect. They've done plenty of stuff wrong. They've made mistakes. They've committed actions that have hurt themselves and their standing in the international community. They've done things that had me rolling my eyes and going, "Bad move."
On the other hand, when Palestinians attack, it receives a fraction of the media attention of when the Israelis are assaulted. Go figure.
And citing historical facts, going all the way back to the founding of the country, is simply the repeating of truths. The Arabs have been trying to kill the Israelis for decades. When we were attacked on September 11, we lashed out at enemies foreign and domestic and were willing to throw basic rights out the window. And that was one day. One. Day. The Israelis have been living under the threat of assault every single day since 1948. They live with a stress that you cannot even begin to conceive. They are fighting for their lives daily. And all you can come up with is that it's all justified because of the twisted logic that the Arabs wouldn't sign off on a deal sixty years ago that didn't include the exile of the Jews.
That's just kind of pathetic. Ultimately, I feel more sorry for you than anything else, that you're so blinded by hatred you can't see that your positions make no logical sense. But what use is logic when you've got hate, right?
Kobe: People can and do judge a book by its cover, all the time. If they're looking at a rack of books, certain covers may catch their eye and prompt them to check a book out. Other covers, their eyes glide right past. And still others may serve as such a turn off that they actively walk away from it.
Covers, in short, are the way of announcing a book' presence. Granted, you can't judge the book's contents purely by the cover, but cover designs can make the difference in terms of how the book is first received.
I don't know what your team is. Truthfully, I have so little knowledge of sports, I don't remember what team Kobe plays on. Actually, the only reason I've heard of Kobe Bryant at all is because of the rape trial. Which I suppose is kind of pathetic, but to me there's two seasons of the year: Baseball season and winter. I only watch the Superbowl for the commercials.
Anyway, I wasn't saying that, because of your handle, people will dismiss you out of hand. I'm just saying that you never get a second chance to make a good first impression. People don't come to my board simply to vent about things they wouldn't say in the real world, as you say this place is. They say things they WOULD say in the real world, and often sign their names to their opinions. It's just a different vibe. It'd be great to see some new blood there, and I'm just trying to suggest what I see as the best way for you to prompt interaction. But, as I said, ultimately it's your call.
PAD

No, what I see, and everyone else sees, is how you were utterly smoked in this talkback by PD. Smoked. The only racism on display here is your bigotry. In fact, I would recommend that you rally what little you have left for a final offensive because I intend to bookmark this talkback and refer to it whenever this kind of discussion comes up again.
<p>
I can't even begin to tell you how pleased I am that you finally used that particular piece of bait and tried to use the "holocaust revisionist" label on me as if there was no difference between us in that regard. I'm very much looking forward to laying into you full force whenever you bring your shit to the table from now on. You've had it coming for a very long time.

"On the other hand, when Palestinians attack, it receives a fraction of the media attention of when the Israelis are assaulted. Go figure."
should read...
"On the other hand, when Palestinians attack, it receives a fraction of the media attention as when they are assaulted by Israelis. Go figure."
PAD

Peter David:
"I'm impressed by him if for no other reason than that he correctly spelled "minuscule"
- I guess if you must find a way to compliment Pazuzu, that's as good as any.
Pazuzu:
"No, what I see, and everyone else sees, is how you were utterly smoked in this talkback by PD. Smoked. The only racism on display here is your bigotry."
- We'll let everyone else be the judge of that. Smoked? Not even grazed, buddy.
"In fact, I would recommend that you rally what little you have left for a final offensive because I intend to bookmark this talkback and refer to it whenever this kind of discussion comes up again."
- Please refer to it. Thankfully you're too stupid to realize you'd be doing me the favor. Let people see Peter frantically lob "anti-semite" at me over a dozen times, only to be outted as the only racist here (aside from yourself). And really, what kind of 'final offensive" is needed when, all else failing, Peter resorts to grammar correction as a takedown?
"I can't even begin to tell you how pleased I am that you finally used that particular piece of bait and tried to use the "holocaust revisionist" label on me as if there was no difference between us in that regard."
- There IS a difference between us. I'm not the one accepting lies to defend some right-wing Zionist agenda. One suspects that, had you married a Palestinian woman instead of a Jewish one - and Peter had befriended Palestinians is his life - you guys would have a more humane, or at least fair, outlook. Sorry but I don't share your biases.
"I'm very much looking forward to laying into you full force"
- You are a fart to my tsunami.
"You've had it coming for a very long time."
- You've been saying that since 2005. Kids have gone on to college, and gotten their masters, in a shorter time than it takes for you to get one over on me. You're as persistent as a lunatic banging his head against a wall. At least MorbidObesity (remember that Avigdor Lieberman clone?) was smart enough to leave AICN entirely after I took him down. And Kobe? He won't even respond to a simple hello. But you keep trying sweety. Keep banging that head.

"There IS a difference between us. I'm not the one accepting lies to defend some right-wing Zionist agenda. One suspects that, had you married a Palestinian woman instead of a Jewish one - and Peter had befriended Palestinians is his life - you guys would have a more humane, or at least fair, outlook. Sorry but I don't share your biases."
You're operating on the false assumption that I know no Palestinians. You're operating on the further false assumption that the Palestinians are of one mind, i.e., yours.
There are quite a few who in fact don't have any problem with Israel. They would very much like to see peace reached. They would love it if other Palestinians would cease exacerbating the situation by trying to kill Israelis and, when they accomplish that task, hold open celebrations singing and dancing about the lives they've taken. They are mortified that radicals dedicated to destroying Israel were voted into office.
Unfortunately the minority is saddled with the venomous attitudes of the majority.
Just because you appear to hate Jews, don't assume all Palestinians agree. Because when you assume, it makes an ass of u and...well, just u, in this case.
PAD

Oh, trust me -- this is going to be the go-to talkback for quite some time, linkwise. You were crushed in this talkback. Completely and utterly crushed.
<p>
A convincing case can be made that some people callously use the Holocaust as a means to further an agenda. What makes you different from most of them, and identical to all the crypto-fascist anti-Semites of the world, is that you're using this callous use of the Holocaust as an excuse to deny the deaths of millions of innocent human beings. You are in essence deliberately robbing these people of the last shred of dignity they have left, namely the importance of their deaths.
<p>
Your befriending of every single anti-Semite on these boards and your labeling of "Jew" of anyone you don't like proves beyond any doubt that you're a bigot. No amount of deflection, blurring of moral lines or sad yeah-well-what-about-you's can help you.
<p>
Where to go from here now that your obtuseness has reached CoughlinsLaw level? Maybe you can do what your good buddy, shogunshin, does -- type "Adolf Rothschild Hitler" three to five times in every talkback in order to make it more easily searchable in Google.

...I would like to remark:
- an anti-Jewish/Zionist statement is made;
- Jewish emerge with the approved speak on why jews and Zionism are, despite flaws, the Jewish soul, homeland and/or ultimately beyond reproach, and that the 'Arabs' started the problems (despite a Zionist "Iron Wall" manifesto on Palestine since the 1920s, etc.);
- reading the reflexive Jewish retorts, as one applauds the other for 'magnificent' same-think responses, the non-Jewish may wonder if the Jewish are brainwashed on these topics, and beyond rational debate;
- the Jewish remain firm, finally humiliating their critics, chests puffed and not noticing their nads have been un-flatteringly bouncing around in the wind.
You would think even the Jewish would admit that it becomes amusing to watch this happen again and again. If not, the case certainly hasn't been made here that one religion isn't as mind-conforming as the others.

"You are in essence deliberately robbing these people of the last shred of dignity they have left, namely the importance of their deaths."
I don't see how you can say that with a straight face, as it were, in the same talkback where Peter David denied the existence of Palestinians in Palestine when it was taken from them.
No, wait. I do see how. You're a hypocrite hiding behind a faux moral stance, shedding crocodile tears for Holocaust victims while conveniently and purposely ignoring the dignities stolen from Palestinians and *their* dead.
And you wonder why I can only laugh when you accuse *me* of racism.